Planning Commission

MINUTES Joint Planning Commissions—Eugene and Lane County Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon October 24, 2006 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Eugene Planning Commissioners; Jim Carmichael, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel- Zdzienicki, Nancy Nichols, John Sullivan, Todd Johnston, Lane County Planning Com- missioners; Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Lydia McKinney, Eugene Planning and Development Department; Kent Howe, Stephanie Schultz, Lane County Land Man- agement Division. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Eugene Planning Commission. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 24, 2006 Ms. McKinney provided a brief overview of the proposal before the commissions, which was a request to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) and the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan. She indicated that the commissions’ recommendation on the matter would be forwarded to the Lane Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. The property in question was currently designated for Campus Light Industrial and was proposed to be redesigned Medium-Density Residential (MDR). Mr. Nystrom said the property was not annexed to the City but was inside the urban growth boundary, requiring action by both jurisdictions. There was no rezoning being proposed at this time. Mr. Dignam raised the issue of whether the Lane County Planning Commission would need to take action on the refinement plan amendment. Mr. Howe did not think it inappropriate for the commission to do so and suggested that the commission err on the side of caution. Mr. Lawless asked if staff recalled a similar plan amendment from C-I to R-2 (MDR). Mr. Nystrom said no. Mr. Carmichael questioned whether the Lane County Planning Commission was sufficiently knowledge- able about the refinement plan policies to make a decision about the amendment. Mr. Nystrom said that given there was no need for text amendments, it could be argued that the refinement plan would be automatically amended by the Metro Plan amendment. He acknowledged that the commission might be uneasy about acting on the refinement plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Arkin, Mr. Nystrom briefly described the City’s refinement planning process. The study session adjourned at 5:50 p.m. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 1 Whilamut Natural Area JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY OF EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Huntington Crossing (MA 06-3, RA 06-2) Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Carmichael opened the public hearing of the Lane County Planning Commission. Commissioners introduced themselves. Mr. Duncan noted the applications to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) and Willakenzie Refinement Plan that were before the two commissions and called for any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mr. Lawless noted that he was doing work on some nearby properties but did not think that constituted a conflict of interest. Mr. Hledik and Mr. Duncan both indicated they visited the site but no information was shared. Staff members introduced themselves. Ms. McKinney provided the staff report for the Huntington Crossing proposal, confirming that the request before the two commissions was an amendment to the Metro Plan and an amendment to the Willakenzie Refinement Plan to redesignate the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium-Density Residential (MDR). The property, a 6.89 parcel, was inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) but outside the Eugene city limits. Ms. McKinney noted that colored maps of the site were available. Ms. McKinney reviewed the public notice and noted that a letter was received after the preliminary staff findings had been complete. She provided copies of the letter as well as a letter mailed by the same property owner a few days after the application was received. Ms. McKinney cited the applicable criteria found in Eugene Code sections 9.7730(3) and 9.8424. She said that staff reviewed the application in light of the criteria and concluded that the amendment proposals satisfied all criteria. She recommended the commissions approve the request. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing. Larry E. Reed, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, representing JRH Transportation and Land Use Planning, introduced Steve Ward, son of Jack Ward, principal of the current owner. He said that Mr. Ward would be the developer of the property. Mr. Reed said a review of the City’s land use and transportation documents indicated the site offered a rare opportunity for MDR development along a future major collector, the Chad Drive extension. He said that the Chad Drive project was listed in TransPlan and was it now coming to fruition. He called attention to the 30 percent plans developed by the City showing the Chad Drive extension, which were mounted on easels in the meeting room. Mr. Reed briefly described the scope of the proposed project, which would be a mix of town homes, some standard apartment units, and garden apartment type units. He said that statewide planning goals and the Willakenzie Refinement Plan policies offered policy support for the requested change. Mr. Reed said that MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 2 Whilamut Natural Area conclusion was supported by the staff recommendation for approval of the request. He said that as a result of the Metro Plan amendment, the Willakenzie Refinement Plan Map would also be amended. No policy or text changes were being requested. Mr. Reed reviewed the public outreach done by his firm with neighborhood groups, neighborhood property owners associations, and other interested parties. He called attention to Exhibit M, which was a flier regarding a neighborhood meeting held by his firm. He said that most surrounding property owners had no opinion while others supported the proposal for residential development in favor of an industrial use. Mr. Reed thought the proposal an opportunity to create more high-density residential development in the community. The location was supported by planning policies. He believed there was a need for the housing contemplated if the city was to increase in density, particularly along its major arterials as a means of supporting mass transit. Mr. Reed requested approval of the proposal from the two commissions. Mr. Duncan called for questions and comments from the commissioners. Responding to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Reed said he had examined what types of industrial uses could be located on the property and the opportunities that existed, which were somewhat speculative. The installation of infrastructure to serve a commercial development was costly and he would not recommend that his client build a commercial building on speculation. Mr. Ward also wanted to realize income through the life of the property and already managed another residential development to the north. He noted that The Register-Guard owned about 80 to 90 acres of industrial property in a much more development-ready state, and he did not think it prudent for the Wards to take that approach to the property. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked if Mr. Reed had met with Ms. Van, who had offered testimony regarding the application, and if she was aware of the final plan. Mr. Reed said he had talked to Ms. Van several times on the telephone but never met with her as she lived in Phoenix. She had been provided a copy of the plan. Ms. Nichols asked when the Chad Drive extension would be built. Mr. Reed said that road project was originally scheduled to be under construction in 2007 and was now moved to 2008. The street was now dead-ended but would be extended to become a major collector and a possible route for EmX. Mr. Dignam noted the changes that would be made to the Metro Plan Diagram if the proposal were adopted, and said the adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. He asked Mr. Reed to comment. Mr. Reed referred to his application, which included a fuller explanation. He said that 30 years ago the proposal would have been called a “spot zone” and it would have been considered a bad idea. That was no longer the case. Communities formerly designated large swathes of land for a single use, creating more need for residents to drive and increasing the need for additional road capacity. It was now considered it acceptable to mix uses and the issue became a matter of compatibility in terms of design. Mr. Reed pointed out that the planned unit development process would provide another opportunity for the adjacent neighbors to provide input on the compatibility issue if the application in question was approved. He reiterated that the proposal would put housing close to where people worked and would be along a major transit line. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 3 Whilamut Natural Area Mr. Dignam asked if staff agreed with the applicant’s reasoning. Ms. McKinney clarified that the change the designation itself did not cause inconsistency; the issue was whether changing this part of the Metro Plan would create a ripple effect in the Metro Plan itself that would create inconsistency, perhaps conflicting with other Metro Plan policies. Mr. Nystrom pointed out if the City enabled people to request a change in designation, there would be some recognizable differences in designations. He did not perceive the issue as the change itself, but rather whether the change created other inconsistencies that must be reconciled. He did not see any text inconsistencies. Ms. Arkin asked if the developer anticipated that the development would place pressure on the adjacent properties to become residential. Mr. Reed did not think so. He said that everything to the south and southwest was owned by The Register Guard and he did not think the company had plans for residential development. If The Register Guard proposed residential development, it would have to justify it in the same manner as the applicant. There were two long tax lots to the east owned by Northwest Natural Gas and the Eugene Water & Electric Board and he did not anticipate a change in their use. He said that a sliver of land to the east would be created when the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) widened I-5 and built the off-ramp to Beltline. The properties to the north would be “islanded,” which was why the company reached out to the Harmon family, the adjacent property owner. When those discussions began, there was no ODOT road project affecting the two properties. The family had no idea as to what it wanted to do with the property in the long-term, so the Ward family proceeded with its application alone. He did not think the Harmon property would remain industrial because of its small, odd size. In the long- term the property owner may seek a change to residential or commercial, which his client would not object to. Ms. Arkin asked who would pay for the Chad Drive extension. Mr. Reed said the City would build the road but he was not sure of all the funding mechanisms involved. He said that adjacent property owners would be assessed for a portion of the road, and the applicant would pay a considerable sum in systems development charges when the development occurred. Referring to the traffic impact analysis (TIA), Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked how an industrial park could generate more trips than a residential development. Mr. Reed attributed it to the wide range of uses allowed in industrial zones by the City and the fact that traffic used commercial developments more heavily during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. He said that the residential development would have more of a balance of trips and it was likely that some residents could take advantage of mass transit or other alternate modes to come and go from the site. Mr. Reed explained that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual was used in the calculation and its figures were based on land usage and square feet. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki pointed out an error in Table 2 on page 10 of the TIA. There being no other requests to speak, Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. He called for the staff response to testimony. Ms. McKinney said that there were standards related to the calculations used in the TIA, and the TIA was referred to the City’s Public Works Transportation staff, which confirmed the numbers were generally representative of the most reasonable development scenario. Mr. Nystrom concurred. He noted that peak flow hours were also measured by the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Siekiel- Zdzienicki, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that incidental trips were also accounted for in the TIA and staff concurred with the applicant there would be still be a reduction in trips from the development. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 4 Whilamut Natural Area Mr. Hledik asked why the site was not included in the Metro Plan industrial lands inventory. Mr. Nystrom speculated it had to do with the size and configuration of the parcel in question. He added that was not unusual for many parts of the City’s land inventories. Mr. Hledik noted the criteria for amending a refinement plan, which included a change in circumstances. He said the findings demonstrating consistency with the Metro Plan as it related to Goal 10, Housing, mentioned the fact the parcel was not included in the residential lands supply. He suggested the applicant made a stronger argument in his application related to the change in circumstance, which had to do with the residential densities expected but not realized in the Crescent Village development. He asked if staff concurred. Mr. Nystrom said staff did not find that as compelling an argument. The development occurring now at Crescent Village was being built within the established densities. Staff had first looked at the refinement plan and determined the need for a plan amendment was related to the need for consistency with the Metro Plan. That was the driving force behind the amendment. He perceived the other issue to be incidental but not as compelling. Mr. Hledik asked if staff found them to be valid. Mr. Nystrom said not to the same degree as the applicant. He did not think the commission needed to rely on that as a finding as he considered the finding related to consistency sufficient. Mr. Carroll asked if the Campus Industrial designation allowed for small-scale restaurants. Ms. McKinney said yes, very in limited circumstances; the restaurant must be associated with an industrial use, and the use must be approved through a discretionary land use approval process. Mr. Carroll asked what development standards distinguished Campus Industrial from other industrial zones. Ms. McKinney indicated that higher standards for landscaping and additional compatibility standards distinguished the zone from other industrial zones. Mr. Carroll referred to the site plans submitted with the applicant and asked if staff had looked at the location of the transit stop to see if it would work. Ms. McKinney said no, as the application was not a development proposal. Mr. Sullivan said the staff-prepared findings for Goal 9 indicated that the City of Eugene had enough industrial land but what he had read had indicated to him that was in question in regard to what land was shovel-ready and what was not; more importantly, the industrial land inventory was yet to be presented to the public. He was hesitant to conclude that there was plenty of shovel-ready industrial land in Eugene. He believed that out of 1,212 acres, or 484 acres was actually available. He asked staff to consider a response at some point. Mr. Sullivan suggested the Lane County Planning Commission would also have to make a recommenda- tion to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the refinement plan amendment because of the need for a finding of consistency with State Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. He recalled that a letter of opposition to the application related to police protection in the area and the high property crime rate in Willakenzie. The County would have to provide police service to the area at a time when it was strapped for funds. He believed there would be a public safety issue until the property was annexed. Mr. Sullivan referred to the letter provided to the commissions by Lane County staff Celia Barry, who did not seem to concur with Eugene staff about the condition of the City road. He did not know if that any impact on the proposal but needed clarification on that issue. In reference to Mr. Sullivan’s concerns regarding Goal 11, Ms. McKinney clarified that no development could occur until annexation occurred. Mr. Nystrom added that currently, the property was in the jurisdiction of Lane County and the request would not change that. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 5 Whilamut Natural Area Speaking to Mr. Sullivan’s concerns regarding the condition of the roads, Ms. McKinney concurred that the current condition of the roads was not suitable for development. When the applicant made his future development application, another TIA would be required and the developer would also be required to pay for needed improvements identified in the TIA. She did not believe that the redesignation would trigger a County road problem. Mr. Nystrom added that the redesignation would actually alleviate a County road problem because it was likely any annexation proposal would include the street. Mr. Dignam had a strong personal concern about the adequacy of the supply of industrial land but he acknowledged that the parcel in question might be too small for industrial use. He asked if the issue of the sufficiency of industrial land should be an issue for him to consider when deciding how to vote. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that in regard to the supply of industrial lands, the redesignation would not be an issue because the parcel was not counted toward the existing supply of industrial land. For that reason, staff concluded the application technically met the State planning goal. If the commissions were not comfortable with the further loss of industrial lands, they could consider the policies in the Metro Plan related to economic development and industrial lands and reach a different conclusion than staff. He suggested that the commissions needed to make a distinction between the policy and the data issues. Mr. Duncan suggested that the commissions could weigh the gain of residential land against the loss of industrial land and make a conclusion on that basis, recognizing there were shortages in all land supply categories. Mr. Duncan noted that a study of the local industrial land supply done by EcoNorthwest had been published that day and accepted by Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County. He asked if that was something the commissions could consider in regard to the application. Mr. Nystrom said the decision must be based on the adopted Industrial Lands Study. Mr. Hledik asked if the Chad Drive extension route was firm. Ms. Gardner said that the 30 percent design before the commissions reflected the design that was being advanced by the City. It would not change significantly. Mr. Hledik said he had initially been concerned by the insertion of residential between industrial uses, but suggested that the fact of the connection created a logical break between uses. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki suggested delaying a decision awaiting the EcoNorthwest analysis. Mr. Nystrom said the study would not replace the adopted inventory in the short-term. Mr. Lawless said since the site was not included in either the residential or industrial lands inventories, he saw no problem with the application in that regard. Mr. Nystrom agreed there was not an inventory impact. By way of history, he recalled that when the Willakenzie Area Plan was developed, there were residences on the industrially designated lands that raised a question about the future of those sites; because of the fact of the residences, there was hesitancy to assume those lands would be in industrial use in the future. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki referred to a statement on page 44 of the application that the owner requested off- site infrastructure costs be credited toward the City’s systems development charge and asked if that was standard practice. Ms. McKinney did not know, adding that the statement did not actually related to the resdesignation request but to the development proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Dignam, Mr. Nystrom said that an action amending the Metro Plan would also automatically amend the applicable refinement plan given that there were no text changes being made to the Metro Plan. For that reason, he concluded that the Lane County Planning Commission did not have to act on the application amending the refinement plan. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 6 Whilamut Natural Area Responding to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding the impact of the application on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), Ms. McKinney indicated that provision of such service was a function of annexation to the City, and that currently, City wastewater services were available to serve the property. The redesignation would have no negative impact on the future of the MWMC. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether staff believed the application both addressed a new or amended community policy as well as a change in circumstances, Mr. Nystrom said that what constituted a change in circumstances was somewhat fuzzy. One could argue that a change in the Metro Plan Diagram constituted a change in circumstances. Staff had relied on the hierarchy question rather than the applicant’s arguments related to surrounding issues having a direct impact on the change in circum- stances. He said that the new or amended community policy would reflect the change in the Metro Plan Diagram. He did not think the commission needed to go beyond that in its findings. Mr. Carroll asked if the new view of zone changes discussed by the applicant satisfied the requirement related to a change in circumstances. Mr. Nystrom said that staff could not rely on that, as the focus was on the map designation change rather than what would be built later. Mr. Carroll asked how staff concluded that the application satisfied the criterion related to a change in circumstances. Ms. McKinney said an amendment to the Metro Plan was followed by a change to the refinement plan; the change to the Metro Plan represented the change in circumstances or the change in community policy. Staff was not relying on the future development but the fact of the approval itself to change the Metro Plan. Mr. Nystrom added that one could apply criterion (c), New or amended community policies, or criterion (e), A change of circumstances in a substantial matter that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. He said that if the commissions were uncomfortable with the findings as drafted, staff could amend them to focus on one or the other criterion. Mr. Hledik said that he thought staff had relied on the applicant’s citation on page 20 of the application regarding new community policies that had created a change in circumstance, such as nodal development policies. Ms. McKinney reiterated that staff was not looking at the mixed-use development proposal anticipated and did not feel comfortable it could make that argument for the contemplated plan amendment since the application in front of the commissions was a redesignation, not a development application. Mr. Carroll said that staff’s reasoning seemed circular to him; in other cases were a zone change was requested, the commission must look at refinement plan policies to determine the validity of the request. Criterion 2 suggested to him that the text of the refinement plan must be considered when the commission evaluated a zone change. He agreed with Mr. Hledik that was the applicant’s approach. Changing the Metro Plan Diagram the commissions would have changed the circumstance to justify the refinement plan change. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that no zone change was being contemplated in this instance; only a designation change was being considered, which made it difficult for staff to rely on some of the arguments that the applicants had offered in regard to the future development. While those policies were in place, they did not mandate that the site in question would develop into a mixed use development. There were several steps that remained before the development stage was reached. Mr. Nystrom said if one was to change the Metro Plan Diagram, one could not create an inconsistency with the refinement plan; otherwise, the change to the Metro Plan would create a conflict with the refinement plan. That potential conflict was the reason behind the provision for an automatic refinement plan amendment. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked where criterion (b), New inventory material which relates to a statewide goal, was addressed in the application. Mr. Nystrom reiterated that the City did not have a new formal inventory that could be used in the decision making process. MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 7 Whilamut Natural Area Responding to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe concurred with the remarks of Mr. Nystrom in regard to the refinement plan amendment. Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Nystrom that in the case of an inconsistency between the Metro Plan and the refinement plan, the Metro Plan prevailed. Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Dignam, moved to recommend the Board of County Com- missioners approval of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan amend- ment as requested and refined in the Huntington Crossing application based on 1) the amendment is consistent with relevant statewide planning goals, and 2) adoption is not in- consistent with the Metro Plan as defined in Eugene Code Section 9.7730. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council the approval of the application to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan and Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Citizen Planning Committee of the October 24, 2006 Page 8 Whilamut Natural Area