Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 23, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Nan Laurence, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney Office; Rick Satre, Rosie Pryor, Rob Dehnert, Melissa Zimmer, Ann Simas, Lloyd Zimmer, Jean Rubel, Tom Mitchell, Jack Orchard, Anne Marie Levis, Jeff Lang, Brad Boyd, Jim Spickerman, Terry Connolly, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. STUDY SESSION: TO REVIEW AGENDA OF APRIL 24, 2007 Staff: Alissa Hansen, 682-5508 II. DOWNTOWN ZONING REVIEW CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN Staff: Nan Laurence, 682-5340 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 23, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Nan Laurence, Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney Office; Rick Satre, Rosie Pryor, Rob Dehnert, Melissa Zimmer, Ann Simas, Lloyd Zimmer, Jean Rubel, Tom Mitchell, Jack Orchard, Anne Marie Levis, Jeff Lang, Brad Boyd, Jim Spickerman, Terry Connolly, 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: TO REVIEW AGENDA OF APRIL 24, 2007 Ms. Hansen said the April 24, 2007 public hearing would be broadcast on cable channel 21 and web cast. She said the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) was available on the Planning Division website. She distributed the following to commissioners: • Letter from the applicant for inclusion in the applicant’s materials. • Copies of the Commercial Lands Study. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Hansen said the WAP had been updated nine times. Ms. Hansen facilitated a question/answer discussion of the applicable criteria. A. EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment plan application: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) Commission. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 1  (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Question: Was there a response from a relevant fire department to any referrals? Answer: Although fire departments were not typically included, a response had been received from the Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) that would be forwarded to commissioners. Q: Was a Goal 5 inventory done for Eugene? A: The City’s Goal 5 inventory consisted of several documents, addressing different kinds of resources through individual inventories. The City adopted a Goal 5 inventory of water resources in 2004, which resulted in adoption of the Water Resources Conservation (/WR) overlay zone which addressed habitat riparian areas and some wetland areas. Q: How were historic areas addressed? A: There was a 1900’s era house, the former Ayres home, on the property that was neither designated, listed as a City landmark, nor on the National Register of Historic Places. It was identified as a historic resource in a reconnaissance survey in the WAP historic context process completed in 1989. No determination was made regarding style or age for evaluation purposes. There was an old historic inventory, but it was unlikely this property had been included. Q: There was language in Goal 5 for potential for conflicting use with sand and gravel mining operations. Did Lane County have any jurisdiction in the matter? A: Lane County had provided the information forwarded to LCDC. Lane County would not be a decision maker in this process for the plan amendment or zone change. Q: Commissioner request for overview of the modeling process before Planning Commission deliberations began regarding Goal 12 and the TIA, related to how the future population projections were defined, how origins and destinations were determined; regarding the volume and capacity rations, did the capacity variable change as modeling progressed and changes were made. Was it possible for the capacity of any street to increase? Was it possible for capacity and volume to increase and level of service remain the same? A: Staff would provide information with a combination of written information and as part of the deliberations. Q: Commissioner request for information about studies done for transportation related to the City of Eugene and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) using the Kittleson studies rather than the standard version. A: Staff to provide. Q: What was the total cost of all transportation improvements for the project, and what portion would the applicant contribute to paying those costs? A: The most recent applicant recommendation stated the applicant would pay the full amount. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 2 System-wide improvements to Beltline Highway as a whole were greater than the applicant’s proposed transportation mitigation costs. The applicant had assumed all improvements would be completed when the new facility opened. Staff would provide the most current figures to commissioners. Q: How did Goal 14 related to urban transition area apply to this project? A: Goal 14 did not apply to this project since all of the property was already within the city limits. Q: How do quasi-judicial procedures apply to this application? A: There were elements in the Metro Plan amendment process, the refinement plan amendment process and the zone change process that did not match completely. The City practice, as well as staff and city attorney recommendations were to follow the most comprehensive process for the entire application process. Q: Hospitals did not exist in a vacuum, tending to have associated ancillary uses. Was there allocation of land within the site to accommodate those ancillary uses? If it was not on the site, what information was available to explain how ancillary uses could be addressed at other hospital sites in the community? What was the capacity for the existing zoning to provide for ancillary uses? Did the transportation model include those ancillary uses? A: There was information in the TIA. The TIA was based on a hospital of a specific size with 100,000 square feet of medical office use. It was difficult to assess if the proposed amount of ancillary uses was comparable with the current McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) and Peace Health Medical Center (PHMC). Staff would research the issue. Q: If the capacity and types of uses were defined in the application, would an allowable cap be designated? Other uses beyond this application would need to be dealt with separately. New economic development would eventually attract more economic development, with ancillary medical services as well as other commercial uses, such as restaurants. A: The staff report recommended a condition of approval to limit uses through a cap on trips. Q: How did Goal 7 apply and what analysis had been done related to natural disasters such as flooding. Was the road leading to the hospital in a flood zone? A: The flood insurance rate maps showed which areas would be inundated in a 100 year flood and some evidence on which sites would be inundated in a 500 year flood. Essentially all of the Delta Highway leading to the site was shown as being outside of that area. Q: ODOT had asked to be able to review plans. Would a Publicly Engineered Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) requirement be advisable for inclusion in the conditions? The staff report indicated the PEPI would address those issues. A: PEPI plans were reviewed by multiple agencies, including the City of Eugene and ODOT. Q: The application stated the only uses that would be permitted on the site were hospital, associated medical facilities or uses that were otherwise accessory to the hospital. Was there a definition of what those would be? MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 3 A: The conditional use process (CUP) would address other uses on the site. A range of uses, both commercial and non-commercial, could be considered. The CUP was not a topic for the current process. The language in the application was derived from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the City of Eugene and MWMC at the beginning of the process. Q: Did the definition of the CUP cover the entire development site? A: The definition currently encompassed the entire site, but that could change through the CUP process, such as inclusion of a master plan. The refinement plan amendments would apply to the entire site. Q: Was the conclusion that there was a surplus of available commercial land based on 15 year old findings or had the findings been updated? If there was a surplus how would you reconcile correlation of effective supply with projections of demand in concluding the proposed change to C-2 would be internally consistent with policies. A: The City tracked available supply. As changes to the assumptions in the Commercial Land Study (CLS) occurred, the supply was debited or credited. As of today there was a surplus and this would add to that surplus. Additional surplus was not a bad thing and was consistent with City policies. Q: Related to the environmental design element issue as it pertained to public and private facilities how were key urban facilities, including schools, transportation, water, etc., relevant to the policy statement. A: The statement was intended to provide context for what was meant by key urban public and private facilities. The Metro Plan defined public facilities but did not define private facilities. Q: How might findings show a lack of consistency between policies without complying with policies that were not mandatory criteria such as refinement plans? A: The zone change required consistency with the refinement plan. It was mandatory that the proposed change for refinement plan did not disrupt the consistency of the plan itself. B. EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria The Planning Commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall decide whether to act on the application. If the City Council decided to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval or approval with modifications shall be based on the following criteria: (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 4  (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change or circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. Q: The WAP included language about maintaining the existing low-density, residential character of the neighborhood. This policy should be considered in the current application process. What impacts would a proposed helipad have on noise and safety for residents? Q: How was it intended that the Planning Commission and City Council would review change of circumstances criteria in refinement plans. A: Staff would provide support for Planning Commission during deliberations on the issues. The City Council would be looking for a clear interpretation. Q: The WAP covered one of the largest geographical neighborhoods in the City. Was the Planning Commission to consider the entire geographical area in its deliberations? A: It would be within the purview of the commission to make that clarification. The Planning Commission had a brief discussion regarding logistics for the April 24, 2007 public hearing. Ms. Hansen said the applicant had agreed to provide rebuttal testimony via telephone if the public hearing carried over to May 1, 2007. II. DOWNTOWN ZONING REVIEW CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PLAN Ms. Laurence provided the staff report and reviewed the history of downtown zoning issues with the aid of two charts: • Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones 1.0 and 2.0 Floor Area Ratio. • Downtown Vision: Key Next Steps (Adopted by Council April 1, 2001). Ms. Laurence said the Downtown Zoning Review project would evaluate zoning and code regulations for downtown and propose any needed changes in an effort to encourage dense, high quality development consistent with the Downtown Plan. Since commencement of the project shortly after the April 2004 adoption of the Downtown Plan, the project had been the subject of multiple meetings before the Planning Commission, the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), the City Council, and at two public outreach sessions. Ms. Laurence said the City Council initiated the citizen involvement process for code amendments for downtown-related issues on July 24, 2006. She described the components of the citizen involvement process as detailed in the agenda item summary (AIS): • Web site. • Information sharing. • Review by ERAC. • Public workshop. • Planning Commission public hearing. • City Council public hearing. • Additional outreach to groups or organizations. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 5  • Development of interested parties list. Ms. Laurence responded to questions from Planning Commissioners. Q: How many people responded to the citizen involvement program to date? A: Approximately 111 people attended the workshop or responded via the web site, surveys, and comment sheets. Q: Downtown Salem guidelines consisted of a five or six page document. Offering information on successful downtown revitalization projects in other cities to Eugene citizens could be helpful in developing a plan for downtown Eugene. Q: In light of the City Council pursuing developers for downtown, how much longer will this process take and how will dovetail with new development. A: Planning staff had been in close conversations with Development Division staff, the City Attorney, and the Planning and Development (PDD) Director, to determine what impediments in the code the West Broadway proposals were facing. One identified problem was the manner in which the FAR was calculated even with multiple stories. There was a provision in the code that allowed for an adjustment review process. A faster code amendment process for a particular project could be used depending on which project the City Council selected. It could take six months to one year to complete the zoning review process. Q: Can we explore alternatives to conventional code or amending what we already have? How might incentives be codified to facilitate looking at alternate paths? Q: Regarding citizen involvement, the amount of controversy could be reduced by identifying expectations of the public at the beginning of the process. Q: It looked like Salem and Corvallis had designed alternative ways to reach defined performance oriented objectives that could serve as a model for the City of Eugene work on opportunity siting. Q: Lack of recognition of the configuration of many of the downtown lots was a difficulty that had been identified through the current review process. Many lots were narrow and deep, which was backwards from how commercial development needed to occur, i.e., wide lots with maximum street exposure. Form based code allowed for creative site development. A: Citizen involvement could include one-on-one conversations with business and property owners. Q: How does the Great Street concept pertain to code? Were there citizens who cared about downtown who were not sure how the code related? A: A form based approach would provide more specificity on the key great streets, with less requirements on other streets, providing a hierarchy of actions. The implications in the code affected the bigger ideas on a concrete level, and it was the task of this project to make the connection between code elements and character elements, and make the project happen. Q: Private groups were talking about downtown, and were instrumental in bringing the issue to MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 6 the City Council last week. The presentation had been well received by City Council. Offering a range of tools could be used as a carrot to encourage development. Incentives were needed to facilitate development in the downtown core. Development would not occur through a zoning process but rather by the people who were willing to spend their money. It was challenging to do development in the downtown area without some level of financial assistance from the City. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission Commissioners and staff reviewed the logistics for the Thursday, April 26, 2007 public hearing. Mr. Belcher said that it appeared that the City Council was moving towards eminent domain on the uphead waters of the Amazon, which he supported. He was concerned that the Council was not willing to look at the implications of the growth management policies and opined it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to draft a letter or testify before the Council to encourage it to look at the implications of their decisions. There was consensus to discuss the issue at a future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:40 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70423.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 23, 2007 Page 7