Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street December 5, 2006 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: John Lawless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING: JEFFERSON/FAR WEST (MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1) Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved, based upon the requests from two members of the public, and twelve pages of written testimony received, to leave the record open for one week. The motion passed unanimously. Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 1 Public Hearing  MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street December 5, 2006 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: John Lawless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING: JEFFERSON/FAR WEST (MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1) Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission. He explained the Commissioners were unpaid volunteers appointed to four year terms by the Eugene City Council, who met several times each month to discuss planning project and proposals, and make recommendations to the City Council on those issues. He further explained the process followed by Commission in making recommendations to the City Council. He said this public hearing was an opportunity for members of the public to provide feedback on the staff recommendation. He said it was important for speakers to address their comments to the approval criteria upon which the Commission must base its recommendation. Planning Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Mr. Yeiter read the following e-mail correspondence dated December 5, 2006 from Planning and Development Executive Manager Susan. Muir: “Planning Commissioners: I want to let you know that I have designated Kurt Yeiter to act as the Planning Director for the decision making process on Area 15. Lisa Gardner owns property in that subarea and I have asked her to stay clear of the decision making process on this specific case/action. Outside of this specific case, I look forward to Lisa playing an active and lead role in the relationship with this neighborhood as well as others across the City. Kurt will be attending the meeting tonight and will enter this into the record for clarity. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank-you.” Ms. Harding explained that the Planning Commission had three applications that were initiated by the City Council on September 11, 2006 to consider: • Metro Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-5) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram from a designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density Residential for the subject area. • Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-3) to amend the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram from a designation of Low-Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density Residential for the subject area and amend MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 1 Public Hearing  the text by revising the description of the subject area’s plan designation. • Code Amendment (City file 06-1) to revise the language codifying the refinement plan policy describing the area’s plan designation. Ms. Harding stated in 2004, the City Council adopted a series of housekeeping amendments to the Metro Plan, one of which was an attempt to reconcile the subject area’s Metro Plan designation with its Refinement Plan designation and policy description by switching the area from Low Density to Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan diagram. Once this change became effective, neighborhood leaders approached the City Council for solution to what they felt was the threat of too much, inappropriately designed infill development allowed if properties were designated Medium Density Residential and thus eligible for rezoning to R-2. The City Council reviewed several options to address the concern, and decided to initiate these amendments to change both the Metro Plan and the Refinement Plan to Low Density Residential. At their September 11, 2006 meeting, the following motion was passed: “I move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the JFW Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development. In addition, direct the City Manager to make this task one of the high priority tasks on the Planning Commission work plan and to accomplish this as quickly as practicable within the parameters of the amendment process. Unless Council takes further action with regard to the subject area, the subject area shall revert to allow Low- to Medium-Density Residential development on July 1, 2008.” Ms. Harding asserted, based on conversations with the City Attorney that it was staff understanding that the Council intended to return the area to its current Medium Density Residential designation when the City had adopted standards to address the neighborhood’s concerns about infill compatibility. The Council chose the July 1, 2008 date as a likely date by which the City would have such infill standards in place. In preparing a draft ordinance for this matter, the City Attorney’s office would include language that would automatically return the area to its Medium Density Residential designation on July 1, 2008. If the City adopted infill standards before that date, it may adopt an ordinance to return the area to the Medium Density Residential designation sooner. If by July 1, 2008, the City had not adopted infill standards, the Council could adopt an ordinance to extend the application of the Low Density Residential designation to the area. Ms. Harding stated that the reference to “the subject area” in the above Council motion was ambiguous. In previous discussions about the area on August 16, 2006, Council motions referred to Area 15 as described in the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan. Therefore, the staff report evaluated changing all of Area 15 to Low Density Residential. However, the portion of Area 15 north of Amazon Creek was already designated Medium Density Residential on the Metro Plan diagram prior to the housekeeping amendments being adopted. The Planning Commission may wish to modify the boundaries of the subject area to exclude properties located north of Amazon Creek according to their interpretation of the City Council motion. Ms. Harding stated the staff report included correspondence received before the packet was mailed. Additionally, letters from John Detweiler and David Hinkley, received after the packet went out, had been placed at the Commissioners’ seats and would be included in the public record. Ms. Harding said, based on the available information and materials in the record, and the attached preliminary findings, staff recommended approval of the Metro Plan amendment, Refinement MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 2 Public Hearing Plan Amendment and Code Amendment. The Planning Commission may wish to modify the boundaries of the subject area to exclude properties located north of Amazon Channel (whose land use designation was not amended during the Metro Plan update process), according to their interpretation of the City Council motion. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing. He explained speakers would be limited to three minutes for testimony. He asked if any Commissioners had made site visits. Mr. Belcher stated he had resided in the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood since 1979, had traversed through the area significantly, and had been involved in land use decisions in his position as co-chair of the neighborhood organization. Mr. Carroll was familiar with the area, and had viewed it recently. Mr. Duncan said he work as a real estate appraiser had taken him through the area many times in 20 years, and he was very familiar with the neighborhood. Ms. Harding read the following testimony from Doris Reynolds, 2281 Jefferson Street: “Planning Commission, I am seriously against changing the zoning to allow apartment buildings for up to eight units in the Willamette to Jefferson and 13th to 18th neighborhood. This is a neighborhood I have lived around for 30 years. I do feel we need infill but I think it would be better to do it throughout all the city on appropriate land spots, however appropriate is determined. But to do all the infill in one neighborhood will forever change the feel of that area whereas a few apartments in each neighborhood would have less impact on each. Also, I believe the Planning Commission could look at the criteria for small individual infill living spaces. I have known of two people wanting to turn existing structures into rental living spaces and did not because the fees were cost prohibitive. Couldn’t you make it feasible for an individual to create a small rental out of a garage or studio space or is it infill just for the big developers. What about doing something really creative like eliminating fees in exchange for guaranteed low-income rents?” Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, said he did not live in the area but expressed concern whether this would address how this problem occurred or was it unique and unlikely to happen again. He was concerned that during the study session this was identified as a legislative rather than quasi- judicial land use decision, and was at a loss to on how to speak to legislative matters. He was concerned that during the interim period, if someone wanted to develop large parcels, they would limited or prohibited from doing so, so that they could have only one structure on a lot regardless of the lot size. He sought for clarification on the issue. Addressing Mr. Biggs testimony regarding the public hearing format, Mr. Yeiter asserted that this was a land use action, so that the criteria, testimony, and decision making process was the same as that for a land use applications, for which Mr. Biggs had testified for in the past. Mr. Yeiter explained that the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial was that for quasi-judicial, if there was an applicant, person or small body of people who stood to benefit by a decision, the rules change slightly so that it was set up more like a judicial judge process, with more separation so that the applicant was not unduly influencing the decision makers. In this case, with hundreds of properties, the legislative process was appropriate. Mr. Yeiter concurred with Mr. Belcher’s statement that a legislative process wrote the law, while a quasi-judicial process interpreted the law. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 3 Public Hearing Responding the Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter confirmed that it was appropriate for Commissioners to ask questions of those testifying. Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, identified himself as co-chair of the JWN and said he was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. He said the JWN voted unanimously on September 12, 2006, to recommend approval of the proposed plan and code amendments. Neighborhood support for the proposals was broad and deep. Petitions signed by over 135 residents of Area 15, over 100 people in other JWN areas, and almost 100 people from outside the JWN had been submitted. He said Council support was clear with six Councilors voting to initiate the amendments. He said critical facts included this was not a down-zoning action, no property would have zone changed by the amendments. The plan amendments would remove a major discrepancy between the plan’s current designations and the area’s existing zoning of development. Of the approximately 255 residential properties in Area 15, all but seven were zoned R-1. The proposed amendments were temporary and would sunset in about 18 months. Their purpose was to provide temporary protection to prevent unrestricted R-2 development from destabilizing this healthy, mostly single family area. It was important for the Planning Commission to recognize they were not recommending a permanent residential density for the area. Council had stated the intent of the action was to “…pause the negative and inappropriate infill. The long term solution for this and other established neighborhoods is to implement appropriate infill compatibility standards and an effective opportunity siting process.” The need for this temporary protection was now more urgent than ever because staff had taken a position in a November 15, 2006 decision that Area 15 policy places no restrictions on the scale, density or design of R-2 development allowed throughout Area 15 under the current medium density designation. This meant the incompatible and destabilizing infill being built in other R-2 zoned areas of JWN posed a similar threat to the area’s character and livability. This area of JWN was an irreplaceable community asset. He urged the Planning Commission to take the necessary steps to assure Eugene would not lose more neighborhoods as it lost West University. Mr. Hledik asked if Mr. Conte and the neighborhood were aware that the area north of the Amazon Channel between West Thirteenth Avenue and West Fourteenth Avenue was already designated medium density in the Metro Plan when it asked the City Council to take the proposed action, and therefore not affected by the housekeeping amendments. He further asked if it was the neighborhood’s intent to affect only those areas affected by the housekeeping, or if the intent was to include the area north of the Amazon Channel. Mr. Conte replied residents of the area had sought to get compatibility standards in effect for the entire parts of JWN threatened by R-2 development. The action was triggered by becoming aware of the redesignation that was done without resident input. JWN leaders opined it made sense to not to bifurcate Area 15 because it was consistent between northern and southern parts. Rene Kane, 254 West Fourteenth Avenue, identified herself as co-chair of the JWN and said she was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. She said when the residents crafted the Jefferson Farwest Refinement Plan in the 1980’s, they included Area MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 4 Public Hearing 15 as an intact, healthy, single-family section of the neighborhood that spanned both north and south of the Amazon Channel. Both sides shared characteristics of older homes with similar setbacks, lot plans and architectural features. Observation confirmed that residential development on Jefferson and Washington Streets remained relatively uniform on both sides of the channel. Without an adequate public process to change the boundaries of sub-areas defined in the refinement plan, Area 15 should not be partitioned by the amendment under consideration. Splitting Area 15 would be contrary to the intent of planning team residents that would unnecessarily fragment the neighborhood. She said all of the residents, inside and outside of Area 15 appreciated the area’s character and have a stake in its stability and future. There were families with children in the neighborhood, and families must be accommodated to provide true diversity in JWN. Triplexes and fourplexes shoehorned into backyards did not provide this. This destabilizing development did not belong in Area 15 as well as in the JWN heritage neighborhoods. Reducing the amount of pervious surfaces in the neighborhood by adding rooftops, onsite parking, and driveways necessary with R-2 scale development, meant a subsequent rise in the water level in the Amazon Channel was inevitable. This was a temporary fix, and neighbors were ready to guide sensible development in the neighborhood. Matt Swite, 1424 Washington Street, said his family searched for six months before buying a house in JWN because of the character of the neighborhood, because it was a safe, stable neighborhood. He understood the neighborhood was zoned R-1 and was shocked to learn that this was not necessarily the case. He asked that the Planning Commission not ruin the character of the neighborhood by allowing triplexes and fourplexes. He added that the JWN contributed to a healthy downtown. He understood that infill was needed but it needed to be done in a thoughtful manner. Steven Franzen, 1727 Lawrence Street, stated he had lived at this address since 1975. During this time, he had seen the neighborhood revitalized, with renovation of derelict housing by new residents, and an increased desirability of the neighborhood. R-2 zoning would deprive residents of privacy, be out of scale with the existing houses, and bring an unprecedented level of noise and traffic. Many such apartment buildings would change the character of the neighborhood due to parking, noise, traffic and crime. He asked the Commission to consider the university neighborhood that had that type of housing, noting the University of Oregon (UO) students had moved from the university neighborhood to escape the noise and crime. He asserted R-2 designation would eventually hand the neighborhood over to developers, investors, and absentee landlords who did not have a stake in the livability of the neighborhood. He asked for a less extreme plan, that would limit the height of buildings to conform to existing structures that would help alleviate the sprawl of increased population and maintain the desirability of the neighborhood. Angela Rooney, 521 West Fifteenth Avenue, said she lived in a modest home and lived on a limited pension. She can still afford to own a home in the JWN which is a safe neighborhood in which she can walk to stores, the library and her church. She did not want to shut people out of the neighborhood but did not want to lose the livability because of inappropriate infill. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 5 Public Hearing Michael Webb, 1492 Washington Street, had been a homeowner in the JWN for eighteen years. He asserted future planning should preserve the character and safety of the neighborhood. He regularly observed hundreds of pedestrians and bikers used the street and Amazon path for alternative transportation and exercise. Increasing density would also increase automobile use. Safety and alternative transportation should be considered in planning. Area 15 was a diverse neighborhood consisting of primarily single-family dwellings with some smaller scale rental properties such as duplexes and multiplexes that had been built in scale with other neighborhood houses that housed single people, single parent families, college students, and families that owned or rented the properties they lived on. The neighborhood asked government leaders to carefully consider and adopt infill standards for future growth to enable the residents to enjoy their neighborhood they care about. Alice Colocoat, 1331 Washington Street, north of Amazon Creek, had moved from the West University Neighborhood (WUN) when the neighborhood character changed. She asserted Amazon Creek in no way divided the neighborhood, with houses and their characters identical. She described a badly designed and sited structure that had been built adjacent to her property that presented loss of privacy for her family. She did not object to infill but felt some restrictions and well thought out plans were necessary. Sara Pritt, 343 West Sixteenth Avenue, read from a prepared statement, which addressed Eugene’s livability and growth. She encouraged adoption of infill standards that would preserve the unique character of her neighborhood. As a renter she cherished her neighbors and the characteristics of the neighborhood, and felt her house exhibited good infill standards. David Hinkley, 1351 Lawrence, #1, stated his comments were his own, and he did not represent any organization with which he was affiliated. He understood the opposition to inappropriate infill, and needed to be addressed through design standards. He was opposed to the proposed amendments. He disagreed with the staff evaluation presented in the agenda packet. He said it was contrary to two statewide planning goals, inconsistent with the Metro Plan, the JWN Refinement Plan, and the adopted goals and policies of the Growth Management Study. He said because of the sunset provision the proposed changes had no effect, due in part to Ballot Measure 37 implications. Sean McClusky, 1640 Lawrence Street, heard people talk about the historic characteristics of the neighborhood, which was a reason why he chose to live in the neighborhood. He asked if there were qualitative standards for design that would enable the neighborhood association to draw up qualitative guidelines that used precedence and site specific studies that could be used as a measure for appropriate infill standards. He asked what the long term goal was to preserve the positive things about the neighborhood while not limiting future options. Jack Detweiler, 1757 Lawrence Street, was a long time resident of the neighborhood. He supported maintaining the R-1 zoning for the area. He encouraged infill restrictions, such as height restrictions, and encouraged “granny flats” along alleys. He was concerned about the lack of notice and lack of opportunity for the public and the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing neighborhood to voice opinions on this issue. Beth Keely, 1757 Lawrence, had lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years. She enjoyed the close proximity to downtown, parks and the beautiful older homes. She valued the low density of the neighborhood. Any infill needed to done with very careful planning and restrictions that would be compatible with the existing older houses. She supported the proposed amendments that would protect the desirable and livable character of the neighborhood and keep it designated as R-1. Janice Gotchall, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, supported the proposed amendments. She said the City Council’s adopted growth management policies required new development to maintain the character and livability of neighborhoods. Citing Goal 6, she asserted the goal did not say, “Increase density regardless of the character and livability of individual neighborhoods” or “Increase density at all costs” or “Increasing density trumps all other concerns.” She said redesignation of the JWN from low to medium density was an example of the second part of Goal 6 having been ignored for a long time. The change should not have occurred without a parallel effort to define standards to assure new development would maintain the area’s character and livability. She asked that both parts of Goal 6 be honored. She asked that the Planning Commission support the temporary redesignation of Area 15 for eighteen months to provide time for development of necessary standards. She added that all citizens had the right to live in healthy, stable neighborhoods. The flawed public involvement process had allowed Area 15 to be exposed to unlimited R-2 development that allowed out of scale, inappropriate structures to be built in the heart of a single family neighborhood. Susan Roe, 1674 Washington Street, said she moved to the neighborhood because she was a bike commuter who traveled West Fifteenth Avenue daily and valued the character of the neighborhood. The bike commute would become less friendly and the neighborhood less livable if there were many cars parked and driving on the street. Neighbors on the street were making significant improvements to maintain their homes and maintain the neighborhood. She hoped reasonable guidelines would be developed to increase density while preserving the neighborhood’s characteristics. David Gossett, 1611 Lincoln Street, said his building, known as the Peters-Liston- Wintermeier House was an official City landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. He urged the Planning Commission to retain the R-1 zoning in Area 15 on behalf of his family and neighbors. Without appropriate infill design standards R-2 zoning would destroy the character of the neighborhood. It was important to maintain the character, livability and historic fabric of the older, established, pre-World War II neighborhoods as models of livability and environmentally sound neighborhood development. The one-of-a-kind houses in the neighborhood were built by skilled craftsman and served as examples of many architectural styles. He expressed concern with the replacement of historic homes in the WUN with big box apartments and inappropriate remodeling. Susanna Meininger, 1418 Lawrence, Unit A, said her residence was an infill cottage. She agreed with the comments previously expressed about WUN, and disagreed JWN MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 7 Public Hearing was mostly a single family housing neighborhood. She requested that the record remain open for one week. Jozef Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, asked that the record remain open for one week to provide him an opportunity to respond to the written testimony submitted immediately prior to the Planning Commission’s work session. Mr. Yeiter solicited questions from Planning Commissioners. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved, based upon the requests from two members of the public, and twelve pages of written testimony received, to leave the record open for one week. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that the record would remain open until 5:00 p.m., December 12, 2006, for submittal of written and e-mail testimony. In response to a question raised by Mr. Biggs, Ms. Harding stated if the amendments were adopted, the zoning would remain the same as it was currently, noting that R-1 allowed some provisions for secondary dwelling units. Those currently zone R-2 would have other options. Planning Commission requested additional information on the following: • The public notification process used. • The effectiveness of the sunset provision. • Legislative history before deliberation. • Potential Ballot Measure 37 implications. Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc061205ph.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2006 Page 8 Public Hearing