Planning Commission

MINUTES Public Hearing on Appeal of Hearings Official Denial of Crest Meadows PUD Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 26, 2007 6 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Lisa Gardener, members; Gabe Flock, senior planner, Lydia McKinney, associate planner, Steve Nystrom, principle planner, Planning and Development Department; Dan Terrell, Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC, appellant representative for Rushmore Group LLC; Kip and Meagan Kńode, appellant, David Kolb, John Rude, Walther L. Hahn, Phyllis Wolf, guests. ABSENT: Anthony McCowan, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PLANNING COMMISSION OPENING COMMENTS Mr. Duncan convened the Planning Commission meeting after introductions and presented the public hearing format to the commissioners, staff, representatives and the public. He said a decision on the appeal would not be made at the meeting. Deliberations began Monday, April 30, 2007. The Commission heard relevant arguments on the appeal. Commissioners Hledik and Carroll both disclosed that they visited the Crest Meadows PUD site. CITY STAFF REPORT Associate Planner McKinney read a summary of appeal issues, which included five assignments of error and a description of each. No questions were asked by Planning Commissioners. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. B. Mr. Terrell, representing the appellant, provided public testimony on the decision of denial on the Crest Meadows planned unit development request. He said the appellant was dealing with highly discretionary standards and different conclusions could be reached, such as by city staff and the hearings official. He concluded that the hearings official weighed all of the factors and reached the wrong conclusion.  Mr. Terrell argued that the appellant meets the “vast majority” of approval criteria, of which many are complex. He said the denial came down to two issues related to three policies. Two related to visual appearance and the third related to access to safe recreation and open space areas. Mr. Terrell requested that the Commission articulate where the appellant fell short, including providing conditional use, so that it could meet the standards, Mr. Terrell detailed each of the appeal issues on four assignments of error: 1. First assignment of error: Visual Impact. Mr. Terrell said the standards apply to where the developer looks to develop the site. Mr. Terrell said the proposed site is small at 3.7 acres with an open meadow and two vegetative areas. He argued that the standard of measure was met for least visual impact in regards to where the development would be built on the site 2. Second assignment of error: Blending policy. Mr. Terrell said the blending policy addresses concern of physical development on the site. He said because of Eugene’s connectivity standards, a road was built through it. He said with no houses on the site, the road had to be built as it was. In the design considerations, clustered housing would group all housing in one small area. The applicant decided against cluster housing and went with proposed development along the required infrastructure, which is along each side of the road. Mr. Terrell argued that the appellant met the blending requirements and that the proposal included a 20-percent reduction in maximum density allowed on the site. 3. Second assignment of error: Height limitations. Mr. Terrell said the height limitations limit 20 percent of the units. Limited to highest elevation of the property, which is where all the trees are, the roof lines would be at the baseline of the trees. To break the outline of a house in an open meadow, Mr. Terrell stated that there would be more trees in the meadow than exists now and landscaping would also require shrubs. 4. Third assignment of error: Sufficient use of recreation area and open space. Mr. Terrell said the hearings official disagreed with staff and the appellant agreed with staff on the issue. Mr. Terrell said the hearings official may have misinterpreted requirements of the provision for safe accessibility for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access. He argued that “safe accessibility” could be met by at least one of the three. He interpreted the requirement not to include safe accessibility of all three. The appellant proposed a condition of approval that would allow the appellant to meet the criteria and stated development of lot 13 (and lot 14) be committed to open space for use of the balance of the project for all of the units until such time the infrastructure is developed. 5. Fourth assignment of error: Storm water standards. Mr. Terrell said the appellant disagreed with city staff’s position. He said the appellant is not saying none of the standards apply. But two provisions, one applying to pollution reduction and one to flow control, contain intentional transition language stating: “applications that are submitted after July 14, 2006,” do not apply. Mr. Terrell argued that the standards provide a submittal date but did  not address specifics about the application being submitted and deemed complete. Mr. Terrell said the language of the specific date was used in two of the new storm water standards and this caused problems for the appellant. He explained that at least one standard would require a $15,000 storm scepter, which would increase each of the lots by $1,000. C. Commission Questions: Ms. Kneeland asked Mr. Terrell if the specific storm water standard language excluded the applicant. Mr. Terrell said two of the storm water standards expressly don’t apply because of language. D. Speaking in support: 1. Meagan Kńode, applicant and wife of co-applicant Kip Kńode, addressed the Commission and explained that the Crest Meadow neighborhood was where she grew up and that she wanted to have a part in the development. She empathized with neighbors and said she wanted to create value in the neighborhood and maintain its character. She said their LLC can meet standards and criteria required by the City and that the development would be a quality development. She said she and her husband planned to build their home in the development. In addressing safe access to parks and open space, Mrs. Kńode said the couple planned to help in the development of Lafferty Park and that they would be donating equipment to the park whether the development goes through or not. E. No neutral positions speakers. F. Speaking against: 1. David Kobe. Mr. Kobe submitted a written version of his testimony. Mr. Kobe said the South Hills is distinctive, which is included in the South Hills Development Study. He stated that the development plan does not fit the values or show enough sensitivity to the area. He spoke to each of the appeal assignments of error. He said that the appeal offers the possibility that the Planning Commission could require additional conditions, requirements on lots 13-14 and smaller units. He asked the Planning Commission to consider more landscaping and smaller units and proposed a mechanism for house size and standards. He said the present plan was not yet where it needed to be. 2. John Rude. Provided testimony that while he was not opposed to development on the site, he was opposed to the PUD. He described the project as misguided and against the core values of the South Hills study and values. He listed values in his written testimony provided to the Commission. He said the design does not show elevation or any architectural design. He called the  issue a “micro issue” because it affects those neighbors closest to the proposed development. His concern was the paradox of the City looking for higher density but larger homes being built on smaller lots. He recommended 11 lots rather than 15 be built. 3. Walther L. Hahn. He said two issues have not received enough attention. He argued that the developer proposed to connect sewers to Crest Drive, which is uphill, and could cause problems if there was a power outage. He said the condition of Crest Drive is “miserable” and it can not handle any more traffic. He said the PUD should be canceled until all of Crest Drive is addressed. 4. Phyllis Wolf. Ms. Wolf said she lives above the property and while the City has visual requirements, she and her neighbors can see the site and therefore, it will have a visual impact. She asked the Commission if the South Hills development plan would be overridden by the City on the high-density issue. G. Rebuttal. Mr. Terrell said that the opposition demonstrated factors that needed to be considered in the South Hills and that the development requires balance. He requested guidance from the Commission. Concerning, the issue of Crest Drive values, Mr. Terrell said the appellant appreciates the values as part of the planning process, but it is limited to what the approval criteria are. He used the long-distance visual impact as an example of a policy that has been interpreted. He said preserved vegetation would act as a buffer for the neighbors’ view from above. H. Comments from staff and Commission questions: Opening discussion centered on new storm water standards. Mr. Duncan requested an application time frame recap. Ms. McKinney said the application was submitted on July 14,2006, and that the applicant requested it be deemed complete on Sept. 18, 2006. Mr. Duncan stated that suddenly there was a question as to when the application was deemed complete, and it became an issue. Mr. Flock referred to the original staff report, which stated that the application was originally submitted on July 14, 2006 and that supplemental information, with a request to be deemed complete on Nov. 17, 2006, was requested by the applicant. Mr. Flock added that staff determined the application was not complete and that missing or incomplete information was provided by the applicant on Dec. 15, 2006, and Jan. 16, 2007, and a hearing was set for Feb. 14, 2007. Mr. Duncan requested that submitted information by the applicant received by the City after Nov. 17, 2006, be provided to the Planning Commission. Ms. McKinney explained that when staff finds an application to be complete a letter is sent to the applicant notifying them of the status and the applicant also receives a checklist. Mr. Nystrom explained how an application is deemed complete. He said staff might need to address documenting additional information coming into the City differently in the future. Mr. Carroll asked staff how the initial application for a subdivision became a PUD application. Ms. McKinney said the applicant originally submitted a subdivision plan but not enough information was submitted. The subdivision was denied, there was no appeal and a separate PUD was filed by the applicant. Mr. Carroll asked about exclusion of certain finishes on structures. Mr. Flock said typically a CC&R would require design considerations. Ms. Kneeland inquired about the new storm water standard date of July 14, 2006, and how it applies to the appellant. Mr. Nystrom said the date could be debated, but state law supercedes any local code. The storm water standards are all new provisions. Mr. Flock agreed that several standards do not apply to the appellant. Ms. Kneeland said that applicant is not disputing the new storm water codes. Mr. Flock said he would respond on a question of when completion was deemed on the storm water issue. Mr. Lawless asked staff to explain what they used to determine scale, bulk and height in the natural blending of a subdivision. Ms. McKinney said the South Hills study context was referred to and interpreted, such as visual impact and how it looks from the valley floor bowl shape. Mr. Lawless said visual context could not be determined from a distance if it blended in. Mr. Nystrom said a variety of factors play a role, such as scale, mass and bulk. Mr. Duncan stated that the South Hills study was developed in the 1970s, and he asked if each PUD was looked at based on its own project. Ms. McKinney said each project is looked at separately. Mr. Nystrom told commissioners that there is very discretionary criteria and that they should focus on the project to address the criteria. Ms. Kneeland requested copies of South Hills Study for the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Carroll inquired about street standards and street connectivity. Mr. Hledik questioned the first assignment of error and how policy is written and how the word “encourage” is used. Mr. Flock said the policy is mandatory but language states” “encourage” to encourage clustering and preservation. Mr. Hledik also questioned the language in the second assignment of error, “compatibility and harmonious.” Mr. Nystrom said the theme is about discretionary nature of the South Hills policies. On the third assignment of error, Mr. Hledik inquired about the interpretation of “convenient open space” and “accessibility by foot, skateboard, bike, etc.” Mr. Belcher said the language is ambiguous because they are balancing several factors: “There’s intentional reason why it’s ambiguous.” Ms. Kneeland asked staff about open space from an individual house. Ms. McKinney said the PUD allows for smaller lots and higher density.  I. Public hearing closed at 7:55 by Mr. Duncan. The record was not asked to be held open. The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. (Recorded by Jonni Gratton) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70426.doc