Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street July 9, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Jim Spickerman, Robin Dehnert, Rick Satre, Ann Simas, Anne Marie Levis, Maurine Cate, Deborah Jeffries, Barbara Mitchell, Charynn Gross, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE 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 July 9, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room – the Atrium – 99 W. 10th Avenue July 9, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Jim Spickerman, Robin Dehnert, Rick Satre, Ann Simas, Anne Marie Levis, Maurine Cate, Deborah Jeffries, Barbara Mitchell, Charynn Gross, guests. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Mr. Belcher stated he had ridden by the site since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hledik stated he had received an e-mail from John Brombaugh regarding McKenzie- Willamette’s proposal. After reading the subject line, he had declined to read further. Ms. Hansen offered the staff report. She said four goals, statewide planning goals 5, 9, 10, and 13, tabled from previous commission meetings, would be addressed today. She distributed two handouts, entitled, Proposed Replacement Findings—Goal 5—Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources and Statewide Planning Goal 5—Key Questions, which had been distributed to commissioners via e-mail on July 6, 2007. Proposed Replacement Findings—Goal 5—Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources (3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list of a portion of an acknowledged plan or an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protest a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 1  (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. Statewide Planning Goal 5—Key Questions The Planning Commission is being asked to determine: 1. Is there any potential that a hospital or medical use could adversely affect either the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site? Staff Response: Probably not, but continue with findings as a precautionary measure. 2. Is there any potential that the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site could adversely affect a hospital or medical use on the PAPA site? Staff Response: Probably not, but continue with findings as a precautionary measure. 3. Would the PAPA allow a hospital or medical use within the impact area of the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site? “The impact area shall be large enough to include [dwellings allowed by a residential zone on existing platted lots and other uses for which conditional or final approvals have been granted] and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area, except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance.” –0108(5)(a) Staff Response: The County did not designate an impact area so, probably not. This is the end of Staff’s proposed analysis. Staff proposes to rely on applicant to provide any additional precautionary analysis under Goal if needed beyond this point. Ms. Jerome reviewed the Goal 5 rules and the commission’s deliberations at previous meetings. She said the commission had already determined that (3) (a) and (c) were not applicable. In order to determine if Goal 5 (3) (b) was applicable, the commission needed to consider the Key Questions. Responding to questions from Mr. Hledik regarding noise and air pollution issues, Ms. Hansen read from the Proposed Replacement Findings—Goal 5—Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: “With regard to noise, Eugene Code Section 6.750 Environmental Noise disturbance contains provisions that apply to commercial and industrial uses, but does not contain any provisions specific to hospitals or medical uses. The Oregon Administrative rules (OAR) for the Noise Control Regulations (OAR 340 Division 035) define “noise sensitive property” as real property normally used for sleeping, or normally used as schools, churches, hospitals or public libraries (OAR 340-035- 0015(38)). Although these OARs contain provisions that place regulations on noise within certain distances of noise sensitive properties, they also contain exceptions for industrial or commercial facilities previously established in areas of new MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 2  development of noise sensitive property, and noise sensitive property located on land zone exclusively for industrial or commercial use. With regard to air quality, Lane Regional Air Quality Authority (LRAPA) rules and regulations do not contain any provisions that apply specifically to hospitals or medical uses, although certain equipment that could be associated with such uses, such as boilers, are regulated.” Ms. Hansen concurred with Mr. Duncan’s assumption that sand and gravel was an industrial use. Ms. Hansen concurred with Mr. Lawless’s assumption that a hospital could be allowed as a conditional use. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Jerome said the City of Eugene could not draw an impact area for Lane County sites. However, the City could establish a boundary for the purpose of conducting an ESEE analysis. Mr. Nystrom reminded commissioners that only Subsection (7) of OAR 660-023-0180 was relevant to this application. Ms. Jerome said the applicant after hearing concerns at the public hearing, had submitted findings that exceeded requirements for siting a new mineral and aggregate site as defined in Subsection (5). Under Subsection (7), the standard ESEE analysis would be applied. Mr. Belcher was challenged to believe Lane County found a zero impact area around the site as the result of looking at existing uses. He asked if the county had asked if all adjacent uses to the site would not conflict. Ms. Jerome said Lane County, in its 1982 conflicting use analysis for the site , did not identify a clear impact area. In a similar state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case where there was not a clear impact area, LUBA determined that the impact area was co- terminus with the site. Although this was an old case under the old rules, there were enough similarities that it was a reasonable conclusion in this case. She added the term impact area was not defined in the rule as it was now, but it was a factor. The county’s analysis was acknowledged and had been subsequently been acknowledged under rules that clearly required impact areas. She said if the commission continued, it could take a precaution and make an assumption that the impact area included this site. Mr. Belcher opined if the application was approved, the applicant should agree that it would not contest any allowable uses on the aggregate sites. Putting the hospital adjacent to the aggregate site was not a good idea, and the reason for the existence of such zoning. Ms. Jerome said Goal 5 required that any condition imposed needed to be clear and objective, which could be achieved with a waiver provision. An option would be to require that the facility not be located within a certain number of feet of the existing lot or pit. Ms. Hansen said the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) contained a policy related to an effective transition between urban and rural uses that could be applicable. Ms. Jerome opined it would make sense to address both Goal 5 and WAP issues simultaneously. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Hledik said it appeared the applicant was satisfied that the buffer distances imposed on the sand and gravel operations were adequate. The issue was addressed in letters of June and September 2006 from state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) regarding the impact area, and subsequent communications from the City of Eugene, in which DLCD acknowledged there was not a 1,500 foot buffer. Responding to a question from Mr. Lawless, Ms. Jerome said a concentration of emergency vehicles impacting truck traffic from the sand and gravel operations was addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Additionally, the applicant addressed potential conflicts to local roads used for access and egress to the mining site in their findings. If this issue was referred to the City Council, the applicant would provide additional information. Ms. Hansen added the applicant’s traffic consultant submitted a letter on May 8 that addressed those traffic conflicts. Responding to questions from Mr. Hledik and Mr. Belcher, Mr. McNeel said the TIA did not specifically address the number of sand and gravel trucks on the road being in conflict with emergency vehicles. The TIA looked at capacity issues, and found no conflicts with the number of trucks on the road and trips to and from the hospital. All vehicles were required to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles running with lights and sirens. Additional information was not available on the record. Ms. Jerome the Lane County plan acknowledged by the state has had no problem with low- density residential and other uses adjacent to sand and gravel, without a buffer around sand and gravel. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for noise sensitive properties, Ms. Jerome explained since a new use was coming to an existing one, the hospital would need to deal with the established use, and accompanying noise of a sand and gravel operation. Mr. Duncan asked that any recommendation forwarded to the City Council include acknowledgement that the Planning Commission had inquired about the noise and dust issues, and advised that there was very little information currently available. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom explained there was not a specific definition of medical uses in the Eugene Code, but a broad interpretation of a variety of medical uses. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Hansen concurred there were e-mails in the record from Eugene Fire and Emergency Services Chief Randy Groves indicating that the access to the site could work with traffic signal pre-emption equipment. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome recommended that the Planning Commission assume the stricter definition conflicting use applied. Mr. Carroll asserted, and Mr. Lawless concurred, that both questions: • Is there any potential that a hospital or medical use could adversely affect either the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site?; and • Is there any potential that the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 4  Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site could adversely affect a hospital or medical sue on the PAPA site? applied. Mr. Hledik stated he could agree or disagree with Commissioner Carroll and Lawless on both issues. Mr. Belcher stated there was a potential conflict for noise and dust and transportation on both issues. Mr. Carroll said the PAPA would allow uses that could conflict. It would be helpful to have information in the record regarding what was new about the application, such as how tall buildings would impact noise issues and how effectively a berm would attenuate noise. Issues such as loss of vegetation and more hard surface areas would have an impact on sound dynamics. He opined current construction codes and building techniques would adequately address such noise issues, but that information was not available in the record. He concluded conflicting uses could probably be allowed on the site, based upon the information available in the record. Mr. Lawless pointed out it was important to consider what the facility developer would need to do to enable the facility to perform in the manner in which they wanted it to perform, regardless of the exterior environment. Secondly, another consideration may be the exterior exposure between coming on the property and getting into the protected building environment. Ms. Jerome summarized those potential conflicts identified by the commission on: • Is there any potential that a hospital or medical use could adversely affect either the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site included emergency response transportation issues, noise, and dust. • Is there any potential that the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site could adversely affect a hospital or medical use on the PAPA site? The concern was the potential for emergency response transportation and possible remonstrance against the aggregate sites for causing noise and dust within the areas designated in the Metro Plan for sand and gravel. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that potential conflicts existed on both points iterated in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Duncan moved to: Would the PAPA allow a hospital or medical use within the impact area of the Eugene Sand and Gravel site, the North Delta Pit Partnership site or the Wildish Land Company site? Mr. Lawless stated the answer to the question was “no” because there was no impact area. Mr. Hledik concurred with Mr. Lawless. Mr. Belcher said it was too great a leap to look at a 1981 decision, prior to the establishment of current rules, and asserted there was a need to create an impact area. Staff asserted that Lane County established these sand and gravel areas in 1981, at which time there was no requirement to establish an impact area. Mr. Belcher asserted the only clear solution was for MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 5 the applicant to waive rights to oppose allowed uses in the designated areas in the Metro Plan. Mr. Hledik agreed it would be permissible to include a waiver regarding dust, noise, discharges and traffic impacts to the hospital. Mr. Duncan stated the current road capacity was approximately 50 percent higher than what the TIA projected, thus capacity issues had not yet developed, adding under the law everything had to yield to emergency vehicles. There was consensus to defer this issue. Mr. Duncan noted general agreement as long as there was a possibility for a waiver. He was comfortable with the decision for the moment, but reserved final judgment until the final language was drafted. Mr. Duncan directed staff to draft language to reflect the commission’s discussion on the issue. The Planning Commission took a brief break. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 9. She directed commissioners to the: • June 26, 2007 memorandum subject: Eugene Planning Commission Deliberations on McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change (City Files MA 06-1, RA 06- 1 & Z 06-8), Goal 9—Economic Development—Are the proposed amendments to add 29 acres of commercial land to the existing supply consistent with the Eugene Commercial Lands Study? (ELCS); and, • April 16, 2006 staff report which concluded, “Based on the proposal’s consistency with the City’s acknowledged Goal 9 plan provisions, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Referring to a letter from James Spickerman dated May 22, 2007, Mr. Hledik asked what about a hospital was unique and would not allow it to be located anywhere else. According to the ECLS the projection did not include land for policy based uses that trends did not anticipate. He had asked staff if the actions taken by the Eugene City Council could be considered policy based, and therefore the basis for this becoming a land use or commercial use that required special siting considerations. The staff response had been, probably not. He opined the staff response interpreted the City Council decision as background information rather than policy. The refinement plan included policies that supported the Willakenzie area was done with commercial development, and the area proposed by the hospital was not appropriate for commercial development based on policies in the refinement plan. He was looking for something in Goal 9 and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) that would justify this apparent contradiction. He asked how the hospital fit the special siting category. Ms. Jerome said Goal 9 did not prohibit local government from having a lot of surplus commercial land. The requirement was that the local government determine what it needed, and ensure at least the minimum requirement was available. Issues could arise in the future about particular needs or facilities with special siting requirements that may not have been anticipated in the supply. There was no prohibition in Goal 9 or the Goal 9 OAR that did not allow a jurisdiction from having more commercial land available than required. She iterated she did not see this as a major legal issue for the City. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Kneeland said the opponents had indicated there were policies raised by the ECLS that opposed adding land to the inventory, such as adding land prior to there being adequate transportation systems in place. She opined this development would be allowed in advance of the transportation systems being reviewed and updated, and all of the mitigations would be necessary because the transportation system had not been reviewed. Mr. Nystrom said some of the questions being raised were more correctly related to comprehensive plan policy issues than Goal 9 questions. Citing a policy in the ECLS did not mean that it funneled through Goal 9. Ms. Jerome said a number of goals did not apply in a quasi-judicial situation. Goal 9 required local governments to have a commercial lands study and an industrial lands study. Once a plan was acknowledged by the state, Goal 9 was met and the plan then needed to be applied consistently with the Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan). Once Goal 9 and Goal 10 plans were in place, it was not necessary to go back to the goal when quasi- judicial issues arose unless amending that plan. If amending the ECLS, we would be looking deeply into Goal 9. Although Goal 9 did not prohibit addition of more, she asked if the ECLS had policies that addressed that issue. In the findings, any policy that could potentially get around that issue was laid out. LUBA had determined that refinement plans were part of the comprehensive plan. Not being in compliance with a refinement plan was an internal inconsistency but not a violation of statewide planning goals. Mr. Nystrom added these were relevant policy discussions, but they did not belong under Goal 9. Mr. Duncan noted tentative agreement on Goal 9, with the understanding that it will be revisited prior to a final decision. Ms. Jerome proposed reserving ECLS findings that addressed the OARs and putting Goal 9 to rest. Mr. Duncan opined Goal 9 was satisfied was because the city had approved plans and documents, including the ECLS. Mr. Lawless and Mr. McCown agreed with Mr. Duncan. Ms. Kneeland did not agree that the requirements had been met and the issue should be tabled. Mr. Belcher added he was comfortable that only the first paragraph of Goal 9 had been met. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that Goal 9 was met. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 10, Housing. Is the subject property designated for residential use or identified in the City’s Residential Lands Study as buildable land that is available to residential development? Ms. Hansen stated the subject property was neither designated as residential nor on the Residential Lands Study. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 7 Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Jerome stated Goal 10 required that local governments establish a demand and ensure a 20 year supply of residential land that would be acknowledged by the state. Additional residential land could be authorized by the local government. Mr. Nystrom added because the subject property had a different designation, it was not relied upon as a residential site, but rather considered open space. Mr. Belcher expressed concerns the project would threaten potential locations for low income housing. Ms. Jerome said the Metro Plan may address low income housing, but Goal 10 did not. Goal 10 would come into play if the site was being redesignated. She acknowledged not all properties had been accounted for in an inventory, and this site appeared to be one of those sites. Mr. Duncan noted consensus that Goal 10 did not apply. Ms. Hansen introduced Goal 13, Energy Conservation. Is it reasonable to expect that future development on the site could make efficient use of energy? Ms. Jerome said Goal 13 was as yet undeveloped, and there were no OARs directing the use of the goal. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said it was reasonable to discuss that this was not only applicable to the site, but also in getting to the site. She cautioned that from a legal perspective, this should not be a primary issue on which a decision was based. Mr. Belcher said locating a use on the edge of the UGB called for an increase in vehicular traffic, which would have an impact on energy consumption, and opined it worth noting in the findings. Mr. Duncan argued the cumulative amount of long and short distance travel for sites in the center or on the edge of the UGB would be the same. He added this facility was considered a regional facility, and would be used by people who lived throughout the area, not only the Eugene downtown core area. There were relatively few residential units in the downtown core area. Mr. Hledik stated no analysis of this type of trip data had been entered into the record, and without that proof, he concurred with Mr. Duncan. Mr. Lawless stated no benchmark had been identified to establish whether Goal 13 could be met. Current language offered options where the goal could be applied, but none where it could not be applied. Ms. Jerome said currently there was no requirement until OARs directing Goal 13 compliance were written by the state, but right now operated only as a directive to tell local governments to think about the issue when adopting plans. Ms. Kneeland said siting something in a compact urban center meant a greater proportion of the users traveled shorter distances, and fewer traveled longer distances. By picking a point MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 8 on the periphery, with limited surrounding distances, more people would drive longer distances. This was an area that had no public transportation as would be found in a compact urban area. She concurred with Mr. Belcher that the commission would be giving the project the energy conservation seal of approval. Ms. Jerome said there were sixteen policies in the Metro Plan under Goal 13, which would be taken into consideration. Mr. Lawless stated the center of the population was identified as Second Avenue and Chambers Street when the commission last considered the hospital siting issue several years ago. Mr. Carroll concurred with Commissioners Belcher, Kneeland, and Lawless regarding the simplicity of this goal. Mr. Belcher was not suggesting recommending denial of the application on this goal, but some of the arguments denied population density variations between the north and south areas of the site. He suggested a discussion rather a denial of the application based on this goal. Mr. McCown said there was information entered into the record regarding percentages of people living north and south of the river. Mr. Belcher stated Andy Vobora from Lane Transit District (LTD) had testified there currently was no bus route in area, and it was not known if there was sufficient population in the area to support adding a route. As Mr. Duncan remembered Mr. Vobora’s testimony, he understood LTD would make a determination on adding a route after the hospital was completed and the number of potential trips could be more accurately assessed. He asked that Mr. Vobora’s testimony be verified. Mr. Belcher proposed striking the language regarding Goal 13 on page 41 of staff report in the June 26, 2007 agenda packet. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to accept Mr. Nystrom’s suggestion that staff capture today’s discussion in the findings. Mr. McNeel stated the record included information in the record included in Appendix E of the TIA that showed the percentages of zip code of the origin of vehicular traffic. He added TIA showed a transition with a higher volume from Junction City and Monroe in 2010 and 2025. Mr. Belcher opined the hospital would make every effort to make the facility more energy efficient, but continued to be concerned about the loss of energy through traveling to and from a peripheral site on the UGB. Mr. Duncan noted consensus to move forward with the understanding that the commission’s concerns would be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Lawless left at 1:45 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 9 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Staff reviewed the agendas for the July Planning Commission meetings. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:55 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc70709.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 9, 2007 Page 10