Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 9, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Chris Henry, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Rick Satre, Rosie Pryor, Rob Dehnert, Ann Simas, Tom Adams, Bill Goetz, Jim Spickerman, Deobrah Jeffries, Ashley Garrett, Christo Brehm, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. STUDY SESSION: PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE PROCESS AND CRITERIA (MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER) Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 9, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Chris Henry, Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Rick Satre, Rosie Pryor, Rob Dehnert, Ann Simas, Tom Adams, Bill Goetz, Jim Spickerman, Debobrah Jeffries, Ashley Garrett, Christo Brehm, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to offer public comment. I. STUDY SESSION: PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE PROCESS AND CRITERIA (MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER) Ms. Hansen provided the staff report. She said the purpose of the study session was to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to become familiar with the relevant approval criteria and gain an understanding of the proposal in the context of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) to enhance the commission’s efforts in the upcoming public hearing and deliberation. She reviewed the schedule for Planning Commission review of the amendment and zone change requests, noting that the staff report containing the staff recommendation would be available on April 17, 2007. She distributed a binder containing the applicant’s materials. She drew the attention of commissioners to a map posted on the wall entitled, Significantly Affected Transportation Facilities and Proposed Mitigations. Copies of the map were also distributed to commissioners. Ms. Hansen stated the applicant had requested approval of the following: • Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 06-1) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram from designation of Parks and Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property. • Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-1) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram from a designation of Parks/Open Space to a designation of Commercial for the subject property and amend the text by adding a policy to limit the use of the subject property to hospital/medical. • Zone Change (City file 06-8) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning of R-1 Low Density Residential with /SR Site Review overlay to C-2 Community MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 1  Commercial with/SR Site Review overlay. Ms. Hansen stated development of the site with a hospital required the approval of the three applications as well as a conditional use permit and a site review, which would be later steps in the process. Ms. Hansen said the applicant was proposing construction of a 423,000 square foot hospital as well as 100,000 square feet of medical office space. The applications were initiated by the applicant and site specific to the property previously identified. While the City of Eugene had sole jurisdiction over the decision, referrals of the application had been sent to Lane County and the City of Springfield. Additionally, the City had coordinated with Lane County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on transportation issues. Ms. Hansen explained that the role of the Planning Commission was to provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the three applications. Referring to the agenda item summary included in the agenda packet, Ms. Hansen reviewed the three criteria, noting that the April 17, 2007 staff report would address each of the criteria in detail: • Eugene Code (EC) 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Metro Plan Amendments. • EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. • EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Ms. Hansen stated that criteria EC 9.8865(4) and EC9.8865 (5) were not applicable to this process. Goal 12 Transportation: Ms. Hansen offered an orientation of Goal 12 transportation issues. She drew the attention of commissioners to the map. She added detailed information on transportation issues would be included in the April 17, 2007 staff report. She said Goal 12 was implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0060, a copy of which had been provided in the agenda packet. She reviewed the TPR. Ms. Hansen responded to questions from commissioners. Question: What was the planning period? Answer: The planning period used in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted by the applicant was 2025. Q: What was the maximum volume to capacity ratio? A: On Beltline, a state facility, volume to capacity ratio was the standard of measurement used, with the current maximum being .80. Q: Did the City of Eugene agree with the nine facilities identified as Significantly Affected Facilities? A: Yes. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 2 Q: Were the Delta Highway/Goodpasture Road, and Beltline Road/Coburg Road interchanges evaluated? A: The scoping of the TIA did not look at the Goodpasture interchange. Lane County had not felt it needed to be evaluated because it had auxiliary lanes between Beltline Road and Goodpasture that assisted with weaving maneuvers. The county did include the interchange at Valley River Drive, which was included in the TIA. There were no performance mobility issues on Beltline Road east of Delta Highway, thus it not evaluated. Additionally, Crescent and Gilham Road, as well as Gilham Road and Ayres Road were evaluated by the City of Eugene. The Beltline Road and Coburg Road intersection was not evaluated. The City of Eugene, Lane County and ODOT worked together on scoping the TIA. While the map illustrated the significant intersections areas that were studied, the scope of the TIA was broader. Q: What plans were used as resources in developing the TPR? A: In addition to the ODOT Oregon Highway Plan and City of Eugene TransPlan, the Regional Transportation (TRP), although not in a way that would make it a Transportation System Plan (TSP) for purposes of this plan, was referenced in the TPR. Q: Various planning documents from different agencies and jurisdictions contained different planning periods. How was the 2025 date selected? A: Because different planning documents and planning periods impacted the project, it was felt best to select and apply one for consistency across the project. Q: Did the Metro Plan contain performance standards for transportation facilities? A: The Metro Plan adopted TransPlan performance standards for transportation facilities. Q: How valid was the TransPlan work since the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) project had been dropped. Was additional capacity for Beltline Road considered for the applicant’s project in light of the WEP change? A: The applicant did have to address the WEP because it was in the existing plan. The regional transportation model completed for TransPlan included scenarios with and without the WEP, and it did show that the volumes on Beltline Road would be higher without the WEP. The transportation planning study for the proposed project used the model with the WEP. In the applicant’s analysis, they needed to assume everything that was planned in TransPlan, including the WEP, would be in place, thus producing somewhat of a disconnect. Q: What was TSP? A: Every community was required by the state to have a Transportation System Plan. Eugene’s TSP was TransPlan. Q: As the OAR that implemented Goal 12, was the TPR the only thing that implemented Goal 12, or was there other text in the goal that may be pertinent to the application? A: Although the TPR was a large document, staff had identified the elements of the TPR that were pertinent for the application and the commission’s consideration. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 3 Q: In terms of Goal 12 how did the TPR relate to existing policies such as the Metro Plan, Willakenzie Refinement Plan pertaining to streets and traffic? A: TPR required local jurisdictions and the state to adopt their transportation system plans, and established the metropolitan planning organization. TransPlan was developed to be consistent with the TPR. Q: The Willakenzie planning team had not anticipated a TPR when policies for the Willakenzie Area Plan were developed. If there were policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan that addressed traffic, how did they apply against the TPR? A: The Plan policies applied more to TransPlan rather than TPR directly. The refinement plans were required to be consistent with TransPlan. Although TPRs and TransPlan changed over time, the connections were more likely to tie to TransPlan. Mitigation of Impacts: Ms. Hansen stated the applicant had identified significant impacts, they would need to show how they would mitigate those impacts. Referring to the TPR OAR text in the staff note, section (3)(a) through (3)(e), Ms. Hansen said it was important to note they were only applicable for facilities currently performing above the acceptable volume to capacity performance standard, i.e., above .80. The only facilities that had been identified as currently performing worse than .80 were along Beltline Road. This would require the applicant to show that they met the (3)(a)-(e) criteria. Ms. Hansen reviewed the applicable mitigations illustrated on the map as well as information provided in the binder. Q: Do improvements need to be in place before a major development could occur? A: Prior litigation resulted in clarification that mitigation needed to be completed prior to development. Q: Was ODOT scheduled to conduct a corridor study of Beltline Road from Coburg Road to West 11th Avenue? Would fixes be proposed and how would they impact the current mitigation efforts. A: A study identified in TransPlan was scheduled for 2009. The City of Eugene, Lane County and ODOT had collaborated to minimize “throw away” improvements, with the intent that interim fixes would not preclude larger projects. Project Overview: Ms. Hansen said the property extended outside of the UGB. Only the portion inside of the UGB was subject to the plan amendment. Q: Although the site was privately owned, how was it designated parks and open space? A: There were other private facilities designated parks and open space throughout the City. Historically the designation had been placed on the subject property in recognition of the golf course. Q: Did we have current land use code regarding hospital citing? A: No. When the City of Eugene adopted changes to the code several years ago, those changes were appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the issue to the City, and the City had not yet responded. Thus, the prior code was the existing code. Within the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 4 C-2, community commercial zone, a hospital would be allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP). Planning Commission Review Schedule: Staff and commissioners reviewed the public hearing and deliberation logistics and schedule for the application. It was agreed that the public hearing would be continued on May 1, 2007 if it was not possible to hear all of the testimony on April 24. Decisions regarding establishment of a comment period and keeping the record open would be determined at the public hearing. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Mr. Nystrom said information regarding the minor code amendment process was forthcoming. Staff was working with the consultant to develop a project timeline and citizen involvement process. Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission’s April schedule, noting April 26, 2007 was being held for a possible appeal hearing. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Carroll reported he attended the River Road forum on April 3, 2007. Staff was working on the next steps and there was community interest in moving forward. Ms. Gardner reported planning staff had met with staff from the TGM grant office and negotiated an agreement to keep the grant funding available after the original June 30, 2007 deadline. Mr. Carroll reported the final meeting of the advisory committee to City Council on the Ballot Measure 37 givings tax was held on April 6, 2007. The final report would be released in the near future. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70409.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 9, 2007 Page 5