Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 30, 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, Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PUD Staff: Lydia McKinney, 682-5485 Straw poll: Did the Hearings Official err in her findings? Failed 2:4, Commissioners Duncan and Hledik in favor, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Kneeland and Lawless opposed. Straw poll: Eliminate the ten foot additional allowance for height on lots with a 10 foot grade change from front to rear of lot for Lots 10, 11 and 12. Passed unanimously, 6:0. Straw poll: Impose additional landscaping criteria. Passed 4:2, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Kneeland and Lawless in favor and Commissioners Duncan and Hledik opposed. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue April 30, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Gabriel Flock, Lisa Gardner, Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PUD Ms. McKinney reviewed the April 27, 2007 memorandum that was included the agenda packet for the meeting which responded to questions raised by Planning Commissioners on April 26, 2007 regarding the appeal of the Hearings Official for Crest Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD). Mr. McCown left at 11:35 a.m. Mr. Duncan said Mr. McCown had left because he had been absent from the April 26 meeting and had not reviewed the recording of the meeting. Mr. McCown had agreed to review tapes of the April 26 and April 30 meetings if the Planning Commission did not take action on the Crest Meadows PUD today. Mr. Duncan said he recently became aware that his firm had performed an appraisal of the property many years ago for a person involved with a prior sale of the property. Mr. Belcher and Ms. Kneeland said they had visited the site since the April 26, 2007 meeting. In response to Ms. Kneeland, Ms. McKinney said the PUD specifically proposed that the identified common area was for use only by adjacent lots. Responding to Mr. Carroll, Ms. McKinney said PUD Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs) may not always be in line with City of Eugene requirements. Mr. Flock added he expected revisions to the CCRs to ensure they were consistent with the proposal when it was MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 1 approved. DELIBERATION OF ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Mr. Flock said the appeal was focused on approval criteria at EC 9.8320(2), (8), (11)(j), and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). • Appellant’s First Assignment of Error The Hearings Official misinterpreted the South Hills Study policy related to planned unit development procedures and failed to make adequate findings regarding that policy. Mr. Lawless said the clustering and visual impact proposed by the developer represented the broadest interpretation of the South Hills Study (SHS) rather than site specific interpretation. Mr. Duncan, agreeing with Mr. Lawless, said the document was written as a set of guidelines and policies regarding how the south hills would be developed, rather than how individual sites would be developed. He added when the SHS was written, trees were taken into consideration, but little was known about various habitats. It was difficult to apply the SHS to today’s issues when we know so much more about the south hills. He found it troublesome that the findings did not include sufficient analysis to support the Hearings Official’s conclusion that the PUD proposal did not was not designed in a way to result in the least amount of visual impact. Mr. Carroll said the site was currently unwooded and the development proposal included tree plantings. There might be room to apply the policy successfully while also meeting some compatibility requirements. Mr. Belcher noted that the Hearings Official contended that the size and scale of the buildings was too large for the area. Mr. Lawless asked if it was the responsibility of the development to convert an unwooded site into a wooded site to be compatible with its natural surroundings, noting it was a separate discussion from the first assignment of error discussion. Mr. Duncan concurred the SHS referred to the top of the tree lines rather than flat lands. Simply putting fewer units on the proposed site would not create less visual impact. Creating a forest in an open area may not be appropriate. Mr. Belcher noted the SHS pushed development towards the wetlands, and the developer of Crest Meadows was being directed by the City to move towards the wetlands. Ms. Kneeland opined the SHS was goal oriented language and not a checklist. Mr. Belcher concurred the SHS was not aspirational, but rather attempted to balance multiple issues. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Flock said the Planning Commission would need to determine if the Hearings Official had provided adequate findings. He added that staff could provide suggestions for edits regarding the findings, some of which would be very specific while others would be broader. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Lawless said the inadequacy of the findings had to do with overstepping the scale of visual of impact and the intended SHS policy level of review. He asserted the Hearings Official erred in overstepping that intended SHS policy level. Mr. Nystrom summarized the Planning Commission discussion, noting the Commission felt the Hearings Official overstepped her authority in applying her interpretation of policy, and believed then that application was consistent with the applicable criteria. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Nystrom’s summary. • Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official erred her interpretation and application of the South Hills Study policy that evaluates whether a development proposal blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of a site by, among other things, failing to consider all of the relevant factors and facts related to the proposal and by failing to prepare adequate findings. Mr. Lawless said the SHS had indicated this area was appropriate for development and the developer had attempted to mitigate the natural characteristics of the specific development site, thus creating a dilemma. The design process attempted to mitigate other encouraged characteristics of a development in a broad sense in the south hills. In response to Mr. Duncan, Ms. McKinney said the applicant returned with height restrictions after the April 26 public hearing to address concerns expressed at the public hearing. She said the Planning Commission could include a maximum height limit. Mr. Flock added staff had not done the analysis to determine how the site would relate to the additional ten foot allowance or capping the height at thirty feet. Mr. Carroll stated there was insufficient information in the record to help with the height issue. He said there was a way to mitigate scale, bulk and height with vegetation. In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. McKinney said the design included a designated Douglas-fir area fir preservation. The staff recommended a condition of approval that required further review before trees could be removed. If the decision was overturned, and the Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation, those discretionary trees would not be automatically approved for removal. Mr. Flock said tree preservation requirements were imbedded in the code and implemented through actual practice. He said the potential conditions of approval included language stating preservation trees removed would be replanted at a one-to-one ratio, but there was not a similar provision for discretionary trees. Such a provision could be added through the final PUD process. Mr. Hledik asserted until infill compatibility standards were in place, these issues would continue to be problematic. Although this project did not meet the City’s six units per acre expectation there was nothing to support the contention that the proposal was wrong. Mr. Nystrom explained the decision was a balance between a compatibility discussion and a south hills natural characteristics discussion. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Flock said staff could craft language to address concerns regarding error and remedy the findings to find compliance. He asked that the Planning Commission provide input regarding specific conditions of approval or changes to the proposal required through the conditions. Ms. McKinney said the applicant had recommended a condition of approval to require a 25 foot setback along the north and west property lines, the highest elevations on the site. Mr. Lawless said a significant component of the central core of the development was the streetscape. He asked if there was a way to allow the street trees to be randomly placed to enhance the development. Mr. Carroll suggested requiring deleting street tree requirements from the CCRs and include language that the PUD architectural review committee would consult with the City of Eugene Urban Forester on tree selection and placement. Mr. Belcher opined if size and scale of the buildings was an issue, then the size and scale of the trees should also be to scale. He suggested considering setback requirements on the top slopes and eliminating the ability to go ten feet higher because of slope. He expressed discomfort with requiring minimum building size. He doubted planting trees would mitigate bulk issues. Responding to Ms. Kneeland, Ms. McKinney said secondary residences were permitted on lots over 6,000 square feet. Street improvements, including sidewalks, were not conditioned in order to provide the developer the ability to comply with the neighborhood context sensitive design solution. Ms. McKinney said the context sensitive design solution had not yet been adopted. Mr. Flock expressed concerns about the legality of basing conditions of approval on a set of standards that had not been developed. Mr. Nystrom added it was important that any conditions imposed not force the project backwards. He concurred with Mr. Flock that the Planning Commission should not rely on criteria that were not yet adopted. Ms. McKinney suggested that the Planning Commission be specific about species of street trees that could be used for Wills Court. She explained the zoning code height limitation of thirty feet with an exception for an additional ten feet on sloped lots. Mr. Belcher expressed concern with requiring planting of trees while not requiring maintenance or retention of trees, while size and scale was permanent. He supported removal of the optional ten feet on sloped lots for the PUD. Mr. Nystrom summarized the discussion, noting the Hearings Official was correct in that she applied the criterion correctly and identifying an issue, but erred by not applying reasonable conditions to offset the concerns she identified. Mr. Duncan took at straw poll: Did the Hearings Official err in her findings? Failed 2:4, Commissioners Duncan and Hledik in favor, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Kneeland and Lawless opposed. Following a discussion on reasonable conditions, Mr. Duncan took straw polls on the following MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 4 proposed conditions: Eliminate the ten foot allowance for height on lots 10, 11 and 12. Passed unanimously, 6:0. Impose additional landscaping criteria. Passed 4:2, Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, Kneeland and Lawless in favor and Commissioners Duncan and Hledik opposed. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to extend the meeting time ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Nystrom agreed to draft additional landscaping criteria options based upon suggestions offered by commissioners for Planning Commission consideration. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:50 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70430.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 30, 2007 Page 5