Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 14, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Work Engineering Division. ABSENT: Anthony McCown, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. DELIBERATION/ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Staff: Lydia McKinney, 682-5485 Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to sustain the appellant’s first assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings as noted in staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and modified by the Planning Commission’s deliberations on May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to sustain the appellant’s second assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision as follows: add conditions pertaining to setbacks, height limitations and trees as noted in the staff’s supplemental findings of May 7, 2007, and the Planning Commission’s deliberations on May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to sustain the appellant’s third assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings as noted in staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and the Planning Commission’s deliberations of May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Ms. Kneeland, moved to sustain the appellant’s fourth assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings from staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and the Planning Commission’s deliberations of May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 1  Mr. Hledik moved, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to direct staff to prepare the Final Order findings and conclusion of the Planning Commission consistent with the preceding deliberations and individual motions as discussed. The motion passed, 6:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 14, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, members Lydia McKinney, Steve Nystrom, Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Work Engineering Division. ABSENT: Anthony McCown, member; 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. DELIBERATION/ACTION: CREST MEADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Mr. Duncan called for a continuation of the Planning Commission’s discussion of the Crest Meadows PUD. Ms. McKinney referred to her May 7, 2007, memorandum summarizing the commission’s discussion and conclusions on the first two appeal issues. She said staff had prepared suggested findings and conditions of approval for the third and fourth assignments of error. She distributed draft motions reflecting various options available to the commission. Mr. Duncan asked if commissioners wished to begin with a discussion of the third and fourth appeal issues or discuss all of the issues. Mr. Duncan determined that the commission wished to begin with a review of the first two issues before discussing the third and fourth issues. First Assignment of Error Ms. McKinney said the question was whether or not the Hearings Official erred in her interpretation of that the applicant had not met the South Hills policy clustering requirement. Mr. Flock reviewed two components that could be included in the final order as representing the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the policy. He said the most significant change to the Hearings Official’s decision was addition of the finding that the PUD complied with the policy regarding significant visual impact. Mr. Belcher was somewhat concerned that the commission’s discussion of the viewshed and how MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 1 it was viewed from the valley was not reflected in the findings. He agreed with staff’s suggested rewording the last sentence of the proposed findings for the first assignment of error as follows: “…proposed lots can be accommodated in a way that adequately preserves balances preservation of each of the four features…” Ms. McKinney pointed out there was a brief reference to the viewshed issue in the introduction and asked if that should also be reflected in the revised findings of the Hearings Official. Mr. Belcher, Mr. Hledik and Mr. Duncan indicated that the commission needed to be as clear as possible because the findings would be relied upon in the future. Mr. Flock said that all of the language in the section related to the first assignment of error would be carried into the final order. Second Assignment of Error Mr. Hledik commented that his recollection regarding the planting of trees was that the concern was with street trees being planted in a linear and regular way and the commission preferred an approach that would help the site blend better with its surroundings. He suggested that instead of requiring trees to be planned in a clustered fashion the wording be changed to irregularly spaced. Ms. McKinney replied that could be done but the issue of street trees was being addressed by a different City department and she was not certain that the commission could make a condition of approval to cluster the street trees. Mr. Flock said the proposed findings had focused on the potential for clustering in the setback areas and at the rear of the units because of the practical difficulties of predicting the outcome of the Urban Forester’s street tree agreement and plan. Mr. Lawless clarified that the trees within the property boundary would be clustered or planted in a more random manner but he would like to add that requirement for street trees as well. Mr. Nystrom said that encouragement would be passed on to the appropriate staff. He said the limited right-of-way would force a somewhat linear approach. Mr. Hledik clarified that at least three trees were required on each lot and those had to be clustered. He felt that a more natural look could be achieved if the requirement was for irregularly spaced trees instead of clustering. Mr. Lawless said with respect to design features that enhancing the increased setback would be more effective with clustered trees to create the separation between the smaller clusters of houses. Mr. Duncan suggested there was sufficient information in the record to provide guidance to the applicant and staff. Mr. Belcher asked if clustering accounted for the ultimate size of the trees. Mr. Flock said the intent was to reflect some flexibility regarding design and the final outcome. Mr. Duncan said that the previous discussion had dealt with planting large trees along the south and west property line at the highest elevation for purposes of screening from adjoining properties, but that would take away the decision with regard to viewshed for those adjoining properties. He was uncomfortable with mandating something that could cause a loss of viewshed for neighbors. Mr. Nystrom said staff was responding to neighborhood concerns about buffering or screening from the development, which seemed a more important issue than the viewshed. Mr. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 2 Flock said that requiring deciduous trees could provide some viewshed flexibility. Mr. Duncan said he was looking for a balance between buffering and the viewshed. Ms. Kneeland endorsed Mr. Hledik’s suggestion for irregular spacing instead of clustering as it was less restrictive and could achieve the desired effect. Mr. Lawless said that trees should be planted mature canopy specific for the effect the commission wanted to achieve and unless tied to design review requirements for spaces between structures to mitigate uniform appearances, he had no preference regarding clustering or irregular planting; the approach should be appropriate to the species. He did not necessarily support more screening on the uphill side because of interference with the viewshed of existing neighbors. Mr. Belcher indicated he was not comfortable with the commission becoming involved at such a detailed level, but one option available to allay concerns about the viewshed was to identify species of trees that only grew to a certain height. Regarding the adjoining lots above the site, Ms. McKinney said they were generally not lots with expansive city views. She said that trees would not extensively impact the viewshed. She asked if the commission wished to revise the proposed findings in the first bulleted item on page 3 by removing the requirement that trees be within the 25 foot setback area and changing the requirement for clustering to a requirement that trees be irregularly spaced within the lots. Mr. Duncan determined there was consensus to accept Ms. McKinney’s proposal for revised language. Third Assignment of Error Ms. McKinney reviewed the Hearings Official’s decision, which did not agree with the staff determination that the proposed PUD met the open space requirement because the standard size lots had backyard and the substandard lots had access to a useable recreation area. She looked to the commission’s discussion for direction. Mr. Duncan said his impression of the open space requirement for PUDs came from a period when PUDs typically represented clustering of properties within a larger tract where the lots were quite small. Mr. Flock agreed that was the original intent of the policy and even though PUD development had evolved over time staff was still required to apply criteria of approval to each request. Mr. Nystrom said there was a broad spectrum of development approaches and some projects presented challenges when the design included more typical lot sizes with backyard areas but the criteria still had to be applied. At the request of Mr. Lawless, Ms. McKinney quoted the definition of usable recreation space in EC 9.8320(6): “Residents of the PUD will have sufficient usable recreation area and open space that is convenient and safely accessible.” Mr. Lawless pointed out that requirement was much less proscriptive than the multi-family requirement. Referring the Mr. Duncan’s comments, he said the application was really a hybrid with private space and less defined common space. He felt the space available on each of the private lots satisfied the requirement. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Belcher asked how the provision that the open space would be used by residents of three specific lots only would be enforced. Ms. McKinney replied that the City would not be involved; it would be the responsibility of the neighborhood association. She noted that the applicant had proposed that limitation, but it was not a requirement of the PUD. Mr. Flock added that the commission could consider an option that would require the open space adjacent to lots 13, 14 and 15 to be available to all residents and that was something the City could enforce. Mr. Belcher was concerned that the area was being used for two purposes: to provide screening and as open space for enjoyment of the residents. Mr. Flock pointed out that the criteria did not define specifically that the open space must be improved, hardscaped, active recreational space as opposed to passive recreational space. He said staff’s concern with the Hearings Official’s findings was that the nature of the space was unclear. Mr. Belcher asked if a resident of one of the three lots could pour concrete and erect a basketball hoop in the area. Mr. Flock said if the commission desired the findings could develop specific conditions of approval regarding who could use the space and how it could be used, including whether accessory structures were allowed; otherwise the CC&Rs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) would apply. Mr. Nystrom said that because the area was surveyed as a conservation area, improvements that would affect that preservation would not be allowed. Ms. McKinney remarked that the applicant had received credit for preservation of significant resources and vegetation and it would be difficult to craft a condition that would allow both conservation and recreation. Mr. Duncan pointed out that the open space would be owned by all residents and any improvement would have to be approved by other owners in accordance with the CC&Rs. Mr. Hledik asked if PUDs were required to provide open space and recreation within the PUD or just be accessible to recreation and open space. Mr. Flock said there were many options for meeting that requirement, depending on the proposal and its proximity to parks and other recreational facilities. Mr. Hledik said that both Lafferty Park and Morris Ranch were accessible to PUD residents and while there was some question about safety, those facilities were just as accessible to the new PUD as they were to current residents of the area. He felt the requirement had been met without the commission becoming involved in the issue of the three lots and open space. Mr. Carroll felt that access to Morris Ranch and Lafferty Park was part of the equation. He was concerned about safe access to Morris Ranch for young people and suggested imposing the condition that Lot 13 remain undeveloped until the street was improved to provide that safe access. He thought the proposal would meet the criteria with that condition. Mr. Belcher agreed with Mr. Carroll’s suggested condition. Mr. Lawless questioned why special restrictive criteria would be established for this group of residents when they would not apply to others in the area. Mr. Carroll said he did not know how the surrounding development was approved, but this application should be subject to the current rules. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Belcher said the nature of the smaller lots drove the desire to impose the temporary condition on Lot 13. Mr. Duncan said that Lot 13 had a 15 to 20 percent grade, which limited its recreational use. He was not certain how leaving Lot 13 undeveloped created an additional recreational amenity to the PUD; it felt like an artificial way to address an issue and would be a nuisance to monitor. He was not certain when the City would resolve road infrastructure problems there could be economic penalties to the developer if the lot could not be developed for decades. Mr. Lawless said that families would need to decide if the location met their needs and he was not comfortable with imposing the additional criteria for broader recreational access for a few lots. Ms. Kneeland shared Mr. Carroll’s concern about safe access for children, but was not certain that imposing a condition with no foreseeable end was the right approach. Mr. Hledik felt the Hearings Official erred because the PUD had the same access to Lafferty Park and Morris Ranch as other residents in the area. He was concerned with imposing the condition that Lot 13 not be developed because the length of time that condition would remain in place was unknown. Mr. Duncan asked commissioners to clarify their positions regarding applying a condition. Mr. Belcher said he was no longer interested in applying a condition and was hopeful that the issue of access would be resolved soon. He said that residents of the three lots would have the same access as other residents and the commission had already imposed many conditions on the PUD. Mr. Lawless agreed that no condition was necessary as it would be the homeowners’ choice how to develop their property. Ms. Kneeland said her only concern was lots 13 and 14, but they did have access to the conservation area and she did not see how a feasible condition could be imposed. Mr. Carroll indicated his bias was in favor of small children and he felt the conservation area did offer the opportunity for unstructured play and while he had concerns about Crest Drive it would ultimately be each family’s decision to locate in the PUD or not. He felt the application met the substance of the criteria and a condition was not necessary. Mr. Nystrom summarized that the commission’s discussion had addressed private backyards, smaller lots with access to a conservation area and access to public parks for all PUD residents. He asked if findings related to those should be drafted. Mr. Hledik asked if a finding related to usage of private yards would set a precedent. He said that a finding that private yard were one way of meeting the criteria, but were not mandatory, would be acceptable. Mr. Flock said the proposed findings addressed the adequacy of the private yard as recreational space and the Hearings Official’s findings, as they now stood, addressed the location and proximity of the site to parks, simply noting they were safety accessible by vehicular access. He said that could be left, but modified by indicating the adequacy of the private yard area. Mr. Belcher requested the addition of language that hoped the parks would soon be safety MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 5 accessible by bicycle and pedestrian. Ms. Kneeland was not comfortable with a finding that the parks were readily accessible because they could be driven to. Mr. Flock cited the Hearings Official’s decision that stated the neighboring parks were not safely accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians; however, accessible vehicular travel was available through the existing street system. Ms. Kneeland accepted the Hearings Official’s language as sufficient. Mr. Carroll supported Mr. Belcher’s request for language regarding anticipated improvement of the street. Mr. Duncan was not certain that the findings were the appropriate place for comments from the commission to the City about the need for street improvements in the area. Mr. Nystrom said the Hearings Official had determined that the private yards would not satisfy the requirement, rather than determining that lack of safe bike and pedestrian access was the primary issue. Mr. Flock clarified that the decision also addressed the issue by enabling application of those standards in the event the lots were developed at a time that the street improvements could be taken advantage of. Mr. Belcher asked if the defendabilty on appeal would be enhanced by inclusion of language regarding the commission’s hopes for street improvements. Mr. Nystrom said that the language would have to be “soft” and likely have little weight or meaning in a future appeal. Commissioners agreed that the PUD had met the criteria in and of itself. Fourth Assignment of Error Ms. McKinney stated that the applicant provided information that they could comply with EC 9.6792 and 9.6793, even thought they were not perceived as applicable. She said the Hearings Official determined that the conditions of approval were necessary to show the criteria could be met and therefore added them. She said the commission could find that the standards were applicable and maintain the conditions of approval or removed the conditions if it determined they were not applicable. Ms. Kneeland thought the criteria did not apply when the application was submitted on July 14, 2006. She felt the issue was not one of completeness; it was only the submittal date. Mr. Duncan determined that commissioner’s agreed with Ms. Kneeland’s comments. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to sustain the appellant’s first assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings as noted in staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and modified by the Planning Commission’s deliberations on May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved to sustain the appellant’s second assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision as follows: add conditions pertaining to setbacks, height limitations and trees as noted in the staff’s supplemental findings of May 7, 2007, and MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 6  the Planning Commission’s deliberations on May 14, 2007. Staff clarified that the commission had modified staff’s supplemental findings under the second assignment of error as follows: A minimum of three new canopy trees shall be planted on each lot prior to final occupancy of building permits for dwellings. For Lots 8 through 13, the trees shall be planted within the 25 foot setback area on the rear of these lots. Trees should be planted in a clustered an irregularly spaced fashion where possible. Prior to Final PUD approval, the plans shall be revised to note that each lot shall include three new trees to be planted prior to final building occupancy. At least one of the canopy trees shall be native, chosen from the list below. Additionally, at least one of the tree three trees shall be evergreen. If a native evergreen tree is chosen, the requirement for an evergreen tree and a native tree can be met with one tree. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to sustain the appellant’s third assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings as noted in staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and the Planning Commission’s deliberations of May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Ms. Kneeland, moved to sustain the appellant’s fourth assignment of error and modify the Hearings Official’s decision with supplemental findings from staff’s May 7, 2007, memorandum and the Planning Commission’s deliberations of May 14, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Hledik moved, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to direct staff to prepare the Final Order findings and conclusion of the Planning Commission consistent with the preceding deliberations and individual motions as discussed. Mr. Nystrom said the Final Order would be set for final approval via e-mail, but cautioned the commission not to deliberate via e-mail. He said that any questions should be raised and addressed in a public meeting. Mr. Belcher thanked the applicant for working through the issues with staff and the commission. Mr. Duncan thanked the commission for their work on the matter. The motion passed, 6:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Hledik said that he and Mr. Nystrom had discussed the procedure for the May 17 round table. He said the objective was to develop a process for sorting through and prioritizing over 200 items. Mr. Belcher asked staff to inform him of the dates of the City Council’s original discussion of the assignment so he could better understand the intent. He asked if the round table would include an effort to inform the public about the initiative. Mr. Nystrom said the event was meant to be an informal, facilitated conversation with the public about the process, not specific amendments. Mr. Lawless described an article in the last issue of the American Planning Association’s publication. Mr. Belcher commented on a recent trip to Portland and his favorable impression of the city. Mr. Carroll described an article he had recently seen on writing a planning commission work plan. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 14, 2007 Page 8