Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 5, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Matt Peterson, Charles Biggs, Liam Sherlock, Carl Bothman, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; John Lawless. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 17, 2006 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to accept the minutes of April 17, 2006 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. KNUTSON FAMILY LLC REMAND Mr. Hudspeth, seconded by Mr. Carroll, based on the oral and written testimony, the available evidence in the record, and the Commission’s discussion, moved to modify the October 26, 2005, Planning Commission Order for Knutson family LLC (Z 03-19) by replacing the findings under WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 4, WAP 26 and WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 5, WAP 26, and to direct staff to revise the Policy 4 portion of the draft Final Order, Findings, and Conclusions of the Eugene Planning Commission with modifications to the Hearings Official’s decision as specified in the Planning Commission’s deliberations. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher opposing. III. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 1  B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 2  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 5, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Matt Peterson, Charles Biggs, Liam Sherlock, Carl Bothman, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; John Lawless. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, asked how the public would go about getting 8 ½” x 11” copies of Opportunity Siting maps located on the Atrium Building second floor, and asked why the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) had not been informed of the maps. Ms. Colbath said staff would get back to Mr. Biggs. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 17, 2006 Mr. Belcher offered the following corrections: Page 4, paragraph 2, should read: Mr. Belcher said it would be necessary to go through the process of determining the appropriate places for densification and for protection in order to determine if both sides of growth management goals could be achieved without spanning expanding the urban growth boundary and if not, planning for that possibility. Page 6, paragraph 12, sentence 1, should read: Mr. Belcher said it would be helpful to determine the extent to which the number of allowable units in the neighborhood had been reduced by the CAHFN process, given the challenge in dealing with infill along alleys. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to accept the minutes of April 17, 2006 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. KNUTSON FAMILY LLC REMAND MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 1 Ms. Adams distributed the following documents: • Public Hearing Notice Lane Use Change Being Proposed in Your Area, Eugene Hearings Official, February 25, 2004, 5:00 p.m., Sloat Room—Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 • Knutson Family, LLC (Z 03-19) Assessor’s Map: 17-03-20-11; Tax Lots: 440, 4100, 4300, 4900. • Eugene Code 9.2160 In response to a question from Ms. Jerome, Mr. Carroll confirmed that he had reviewed the entire record and was sufficiently informed to enable him to participate in today’s discussion. Ms. Jerome noted that Mr. Lawless had declared a conflict of interest when the issue had previously been before the Planning Commission, and would not have been able to participate if he was present. Ms. Adams stated that the Planning Commission was scheduled to take action on the second remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) regarding the Knutson Family LLC zone change appeal and summarized the zone change request and appeal history. Ms. Adams said that LUBA upheld the Planning Commission’s October 2005 zone change approval with regard to one assignment of error and, in part, on the second assignment of error. Ms. Adams indicated that the second assignment of error addresses whether the Planning Commission decision failed to comply with the criterion requiring compliance with the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, (Metro Plan) and the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). The opponent argued that several plan polices that the City concluded were not directly applicable should have been considered. Ms. Adams asserted LUBA agreed with the City’s determination regarding all but two of the policies in question; Specifically, LUBA found that the Planning Commission must consider and adopt adequate findings explaining its position regarding the Sheldon Sub-area Policy 4 and 5 from the WAP. Ms. Adams stated the City Attorney and staff had prepared an AIS and a draft final order based on the record and the Planning Commission’s previous decision. • Ms. Adams reviewed the map included as part of the original notice for zone change application in 2004. Ms. Jerome said LUBA did not say, and staff did not believe, the LUBA decision required the Planning Commission to open the record to hear new evidence or new argument, although the Planning Commission had the option of doing so. Ms. Jerome said if the Planning Commission chose to follow the staff recommendation to consider the issue without new evidence or new argument, and subsequently felt there was insufficient information to make a decision, the commission could direct staff to reopen the record. She recommended that the commission go forward under the assumption that the record would not be opened, while encouraging commissioners to speak up if the proposed process was not working for them. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Jerome noted that the final decision needed to be made by June 19, 2006, opining that staff should be consulted regarding the ramification of opening the record. Ms. Colbath noted consensus to accept the staff recommendation to not reopen the record at the present time, but to remain flexible to do so if the need arose. Ms. Jerome summarized the previous appeal issues that LUBA had resolved and noted the two policies that remained on remand: A. WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 4, WAP 26 Referring to page II-15 of the AIS, WAP Policy 4, stated: “Recognize the existing general office and commercial uses located along the west side of Coburg Road, north of Willakenzie Road, and discourage future rezoning of these properties.” Ms. Jerome said the October Planning Commission decision held that this policy is not mandatory. Ms. Jerome added LUBA held that WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 4 warranted more consideration and quoted several statements from LUBA’s decision. Ms. Jerome said that the draft final order considers this policy for one of the five parcels at issue, that being Tax Lot 4000, and explained the rationale. She said the Planning Commission needed to discuss whether this policy applied to all or some or only one of the tax lots at issue. She noted how the Hearings Official considered this issue. Mr. Belcher asked if Tax Lot 4900 was partitioned off of the other two lots after the WAP was adopted. Ms. Jerome said the record did not discuss that issue and that the WAP showed them as three separate lots. Mr. Carroll asked whether parking would have been considered a use in the WAP. and noted when the plan was adopted there was a house in use as an office on the tax lot. Ms. Jerome replied parking could have been a considered use, and it was the purview of the Planning Commission to evaluate what the drafters of the plan intended. Referring to AIS page II-16, paragraph 6, Mr. Carroll asserted the existing general office use was what was recognized, rather than the zoning. He opined there was an inconsistency in how the term “use” was being applied on Tax Lots 4000 and 4900 and questioned what was intended when the WAP was drafted. As a member of the WAP committee, Mr. Hledik said he did not recall discussing the policy language at that level of detail. In response to questions raised by Ms. Colbath and Mr. Carroll, Ms. Jerome indicated that the Planning Commission needed to recognize what LUBA had said, i.e., “this is very site specific”, and suggested looking at the question from the perspective of those who drafted the policy to establish the context of the WAP. Ms. Jerome noted that the question before the Planning Commission was which of the lots in question the policy applied to. Mr. Belcher said it was clear that the makers of the WAP wanted to ensure that the tax lots stayed MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 3 in office and commercial use. He said the proposal was to change it from one commercial use to another, and it would be useful to review the allowable uses for C-1 and C-2 to determine if a significant use existed to determine if the proposal was significantly different that the existing language. Upon request, Ms. Adams distributed the following document: Eugene Code 9.2160. Mr. Hledik said it was not clear to him that Policy 4 should not apply to Tax Lot 4900, as the tax lot was in the overall commercial area west of Coburg Road. However, he added that the argument that C-2 site review overlay provided protections would also apply to Tax Lot 4900. Mr. Belcher opined that the policy should not apply to a lot that doesn’t abut Coburg Road Mr. Carroll said it was reasonable to assume that Tax Lot 4900 fell under the policy. He added he was comfortable moving forward assuming the policy pertained to more than one lot. He believed the nature of a refinement plan was to look at the existing conditions to determine how they affected livability. He felt more strongly about Tax Lots 4100, 4300, and 4400 being part of the policy. Mr. Hledik believed the intent of WAP was to discourage future rezonings to residential, industrial, parks and open space, rather than commercial and general office. He added that the specific commercial zone is irrelevant in the context of Policy 4. it was irrelevant whether it was designated C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, or GO. Ms. Jerome offered background on previous Planning Commission and Hearings Official actions and the current staff recommendation. She added that the Planning Commission determined the policy was not mandatory because of “discourage” in the language. She said that the Planning Commission needed to reconsider the record in light of LUBA’s determination. Ms. Jerome stated that throughout the process, the opponents had argued the record did not establish reason to overcome the policy preference, and were concerned that the applicant had claimed medical office use would continue on the site, thus precluding the need to rezone the site. She added that the opponents did not agree with the argument that it should be rezoned to allow for consolidation, which was encouraged by other policies. Ms. Jerome said from the opponents’ testimony, they argued that the sites could be consolidated while limiting access under existing zoning. The opponents also argued that this use would allow noise and light, and other things that would conflict with traffic and the other uses around it. For those reasons, there was no compelling reason to overcome the policy preference. After reviewing the record, Ms. Jerome said the draft final order is consistent with the previous direction of the Planning Commission and concludes that the record demonstrates sufficient basis to overcome the policy preference of Policy 4. Ms. Jerome said the draft final order does not take the position that the requested zone change is inconsistent with the Policy 4, noting although the use could become more intense in a C-2 zone, the rezoning would recognize the existing commercial uses. Ms. Jerome noted that the findings considered other policies that are served by the rezone and described the policies Mr. Belcher opined that the WAP policies were intended to address the compatibility of uses that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 4 could occur. He indicated that the vast majority of the allowed uses would continue to be commercial and would not likely be problematic for the neighbors. Mr. Hledik opined that the policies were intended to recognize existing commercial uses, in general, and not to differentiate different commercial zones. Ms. Colbath opined the intent of the WAP policy was to address Tax Lot 4900, noting that the tax lot is within the commercial area in question west of Coburg Road Mr. Carroll questioned the point of the policy if it was construed to allow any commercial zone. He noted that neighborhood plans typically respond to the fear of increased intensity.. Mr. Belcher asked how adjacent uses would be impacted if the zone was changed from C-1 to C- 2. It was appropriate that Coburg Road was a C-2 type of area, noting it was not a neighborhood commercial type of area. On the Coburg Road side, the WAP designated C-2 as an appropriate commercial use. The densely developed R-2 areas to the west needed to be compatible with the C-2 use. He said the intent of the policy was to retain the existing zoning.. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Hledik indicated support for the argument that the C-2 zone with an SR overlay would promote continuation of existing office and commercial uses in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent neighbors as well. Ms. Colbath indicated support for the argument, noting that site review afforded the opportunity for public notice and comment. Mr. Belcher indicated that the site review overlay was not strong enough to provide protection for the neighborhoods, noting that virtually every site review to go before a Hearings Official had been approved without changes. Ms. Jerome said the draft decision before the Planning Commission needed to be revised based on the deliberation as it indicates the Policy 4 does not apply to Tax Lot 4900. Ms. Jerome noted a majority of the Planning Commissioners agreed the proposal was not inconsistent with Policy 4, and it did not need to be overcome because C-1 and C-2 were all commercial, thus not inconsistent with the policy. Ms. Colbath noted consensus to include Ms. Jerome’s summary. Mr. Carroll clarified that it was his position that the zone change was not clearly consistent with the policy and that the policy was overcome by other policy considerations. Ms. Jerome proposed drafting language that included the minority opinion. Ms. Jerome facilitated a discussion and offered a summary of the Planning Commission’s discussion: • Page II-16, paragraphs 1 and 2, would remain the same. • Page II-16, paragraph 3, would be revised to implicate all of the Tax Lots, i.e., 4000, 4100, 4300, 4400, and 4900. • Page II-16, paragraphs 4 and 5, to be deleted. • Page II-16, paragraph 6, to be revised. • Page II-16, paragraph 7, to be revised to include all tax lots. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 5 Referring to page II-17, Mr. Hledik the argument for overriding the preference in Policy 4. Mr. Belcher said he would need to see how the development of the parcels would be impacted by consolidation and reducing access to Coburg Road, to determine if it trumped other policy language. Mr. Carroll the Planning Commission was not trumping, but rather providing supporting information for the commission’s decision related to Policy 4. He added said it was not necessary to prove the application was consistent with Policy 4, if it could be shown Policy 4 was overridden. In response to questions from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom said current C-1 zoning significantly limited the size of uses, thus making it more likely that the uses would be more independent. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Jerome reading from LUBA’s decision, said, The policy preference is not absolute, and can be overcome by sufficient reasons, and/or competing policy considerations.” It clearly required the City of Eugene “to at least consider whether the applicant had established a basis to overcome that policy preference……Policy 4 expresses a preference that the subject property remain in its existing zoning and when in context the policy clearly mandates that the City be guided by, at a minimum consider, that preference in the context of an application to rezone. The Planning Commission erred in failing to apply and consider Policy 4.” Mr. Hledik said rezoning did encourage consolidation and development. He asserted there was nothing in the policy that argued against rezoning. Mr. Nystrom asked if there was language that needed to be added, removed or modified to meet the concerns of the commissioners. Mr. Hudspeth said he was satisfied with the language staff had provided. Mr. Belcher said there was insufficient information to go against LUBA and to conclude that the proposed zone change is consistent with Policy 4. Ms. Colbath stated that the Planning Commission had looked at Policy 4, as directed by LUBA, thus fulfilling LUBA’s requirement. She noted LUBA had given guidance, but the Planning Commission could disagree with that guidance and find that Policy 4 is met. Ms. Jerome stated staff would draft language allowing two alternative points based on the commissions discussion. As an initial matter, in reviewing the decision as directed by LUBA, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zone change complies with Policy 4, as the policy should not be construed to distinguish commercial uses. Otherwise, the Planning Commission finds that the preferences in other policies and criteria override Policy 4. Mr. Belcher stated he had not heard sufficient reasons or competing policy considerations to conclude Policy 4 is met or overcome. Ms. Jerome noted general consensus on how to revise the draft final order in response to the Planning Commission discussion. B. WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 5, WAP 26 Referring to page II-17 of the AIS, WAP Policy 5, stated: “The City shall encourage the location MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 6 of general office uses as a transition between commercial and residential uses.” Ms. Jerome said LUBA held that Policy 5 “expresses a clear policy preference to buffer residential and commercial uses with general offices uses in the Sheldon Sub-Area” and that the Planning Commission “must at least consider the policy preference expressed in Policy 5 as guidance in deciding whether to approve the requested rezone of Tax Lot 4900 from GO to C-2.” Ms. Jerome noted that the Hearings Official found the record did not provide enough basis to override the preference in Policy 5 for Tax Lot 4900. Ms. Jerome said the draft final order concludes that other policy considerations do justify the departure from the policy put forth in Policy 5 consistent with the previous Planning Commission direction and she summarized the findings. Ms. Colbath stated the transitional value of Tax Lot 4900 was minimal due lack of sufficient buffers on Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4300, and 4400, and relatively high intensity of other uses in the vicinity. She said it would be consistent with Policy 5 and the findings, and supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Colbath noted consensus to agree with the staff recommendation that the findings were consistent, and a decision that Tax Lot 4900 did not warrant denying the requested rezone for Tax Lot 4900 due to Policy 5. The Planning Commission took at break from 1:15 p.m. to 1:24 p.m. Mr. Hudspeth, seconded by Mr. Carroll, based on the oral and written testimony, the available evidence in the record, and the Commission’s discussion, moved to modify the October 26, 2005, Planning Commission Order for Knutson family LLC (Z 03-19) by replacing the findings under WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 4, WAP 26 and WAP Sheldon Sub-area Policy 5, WAP 26, and to direct staff to revise the Policy 4 portion of the draft Final Order, Findings, and Conclusions of the Eugene Planning Commission with modifications to the Hearings Official’s decision as specified in the Planning Commission’s deliberations. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome indicated an affirmative vote on the motion indicated intent to modify and approve the findings. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Jerome said revised language on the findings would be sent to commissioners via email. She said she would review the law to ensure the commission’s actions were in compliance. Commissioners would be sent clear directions on how to respond to the revised language. If a vote was necessary, it would take place at the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher opposing. Ms. Colbath thanked Ms. Adams and Ms. Jerome for their work on this issue. III. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 7 On the recommendation of Mr. Nystrom, the Planning Commission agreed to move the discussion on opportunity siting and resource needs in preparation for a joint meeting with the City Council to June 12, 2006. Ms. Muir said the date for the joint meeting had not been scheduled, adding staff would notify commissioners when it was scheduled. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir said the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the city-owned site at 10th Avenue and Charnelton Street had been posted, and would close on August 15, 2006. Ms. Muir distributed copies of a document entitled Eugene Planning Commission General Location—Member’s Work & Home. She said the City Council was looking at diversity on all city boards and commission. Mr. Nystrom reviewed the possible dates for a joint meeting with the City Council. B. Other Items from Commission In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom said the next two Planning Commission meetings were scheduled for June 12 and June 19, 2006, adding there was no public hearing scheduled for June 13, 2006 Ms. Muir asked commissioners to email home or work address and telephone number changes to Jan Cabaniss. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said Planning Commissioners Colbath and Duncan terms expired on October 31, 2006. City Council interviews were tentatively scheduled for early October. Mr. Belcher encouraged commissioners to talk with their Council buddies prior to the City Council June 12, 2006 public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 budget. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:33 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060515.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 5, 2006 Page 8