Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue July 23, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Randy Groves, Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Jim Spickerman, Robin Dehnert, Rick Satre, Ann Simas, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, member; 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 23, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue July 23, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Alissa Hansen, Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Randy Groves, Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Jim Spickerman, Robin Dehnert, Rick Satre, Ann Simas, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; Jon Belcher, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Hledik convened the meeting. Ms. Hansen confirmed that five Planning Commission members in attendance represented a quorum. I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Mr. Hledik introduced Randy Groves, Chief of Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services. Ms. Hansen reviewed an e-mail dated April 20, 2007 and a memorandum dated May 8, 2007, both from Fire & EMS staff, previously added to the public record and distributed to Planning Commission members. Ms. Jerome reminded Planning Commissioners that they could only consider issues that were already on the record. Mr. Groves responded to concerns raised at previous meetings, identified in a memorandum dated July 16, 2007 to the Planning Commission from Ms. Hansen, referred to as the “parking lot” memo: • From June 26, 2007 meeting o 3. Emergency vehicle access—physical means (ramp meter by-pass lanes). ƒ Mr. Groves said the reaction of the motoring public was unpredictable. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (F&EMS) vehicles always tried to pass on the left, according to ORS requirements, but frequently had to “thread the needle” to move through the traffic. Staff were accustomed to moving through congested areas on a daily basis. o 4. North Delta Highway/Ayres Road intersection—access to site. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 2  ƒ Mr. Groves said F&EMS staff dealt with blocked intersections on a regular basis. They were able to cautiously proceed through an accident site when a situation called for that action. It was preferable to be able to use alternate routes when circumstances allowed, up to and including dispatching additional units from another direction. • From June 27, 2007 meeting o 10. Potential lack of access in catastrophic event. ƒ Mr. Groves said that potential existed on any site in town. In the event of a large scale disaster such as an earthquake, the City had an elaborate emergency plan that would be implemented, including extensive mutual aide agreements with Lane County and the State of Oregon that would bring in outside resources, that could include setting up Mobile Surgical Hospitals (MASH) in the field. He noted the downside was, in the event of a large scale event, those resources did take some time to mobilize. He added that in the event that all of the bridges were unusable due to a catastrophic event, it would not be possible to access the north side of the river from the south side of the river immediately. It would take time for the National Guard and other military assistance to install mobile bridges. Under those circumstances, under the emergency plan, hospitals south of Eugene would be accessed by airlift, and treatment centers on the south side of the river would be established. A level of response, initially would be overwhelmed under any scenario, regardless of the hospital locations. o 12. Sufficient emergency access. ƒ Mr. Groves said under a normal scenario with the bridges in tact, there was sufficient emergency access. In the case of fire on larger structures, the preferred method was to arrive from multiple angles. Traffic calming devices slowed vehicles, but they were not insurmountable. Ayres Road was designed under a different set of uses than currently under discussion and heavy traffic would slow the emergency vehicles. In the event a hospital was not accessible, it would be bypassed and patients transported to another hospital. In trauma activations, F&EMS was required to go to the highest trauma level institution, which would be River Bend at this time. He concluded it was difficult to address hypothetic situations. Under the current circumstances, the proposed hospital siting would work. • From July 9, 2007 meeting o 14. Impact of emergency vehicle traffic on existing sand and gravel trucks. ƒ Mr. Groves assumed city streets would be improved to city standards that would be compatible with F&EMS needs and uses, including but not limited to maximum road width and travel lanes. Mr. Groves said although the dump trucks would add complexity for emergency access, the department dealt with large trucks frequently in other areas, and did not present an insurmountable concern. He added that all intersections in the City were equipped with Opticon signal controls that allowed emergency vehicles to control signals A signal would be added at the intersection in question as part of the project. Mr. McNeel added streets would be designed and built according to City standards, thus accommodating emergency vehicles. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 3 Zone Change Criteria: Referring to the June 26, 2007 agenda packet, Ms. Hansen addressed Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865—Zone Change Approval Criteria. (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. There was consensus by the Planning Commission to accept the staff finding on (1). (2) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable adopted refinements plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. There was consensus by the Planning Commission to accept the staff finding on (2). (3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Referring to page 49 of the June 26, 2007 agenda packet, the staff findings were: The following key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, are currently available to the subject property, or can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner to serve future development: wastewater service, stormwater service, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district- wide basis. It is noted that several details remain to be resolved in the context of any future development proposal. In regards to transportation, the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a) under Statewide Planning Goal 12 are incorporated herein by reference. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Yeiter said when property was annexed to the City, it was critical for the annexation approval that an appropriate level of service be provided in a reasonable timeframe. He added that development plans were not generally provided at the time of annexation. Ms. Jerome said the Planning Commission provided some insight in the Knutson case, looking at a range of potential. Additionally, the Planning Commission provided an interpretation regarding how much analysis was required regarding transportation. The Planning Commission agreed with the Hearings Official determination that to show consistency with this criterion for transportation purposes the applicant did not need to submit a full scale traffic impact analysis (TIA) largely because the TIA analysis came at the time of development under City code. This request differed from most other requests in that the specific development was known at the time the request was submitted. Ms. Hansen said Public Works staff had reviewed the application considering a hospital/medical use, and concurred that the site did have the necessary facilities or that the necessary facilities could be provided. Ms. Jerome said the Commission’s inclination to relate the issue to Goal 11 and Goal 14 were appropriate. Those policies required thoughtful development to prevent “leap frogging” to create urban centers that required the City to provide infrastructure through undeveloped areas. If the Commission choose to interpret it differently, it would be important to provide specific language to the City Council. Responding to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Jerome said the Planning Commission would be prohibited from looking at uses, which by the nature of the proposal, could not be developed at the site. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Carroll expressed discomfort with the transportation conditions related to Goal 12. Mr. Lawless said he had concerns regarding adequate provision of emergency services. Ms. Kneeland and Mr. McCown shared the transportation and emergency vehicle concerns. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in (a) EC 9.1250 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements did not apply because there were no applicable siting requirements for C-2, Community Commercial. There was consensus by the Planning Commission to accept the staff finding on (4). (5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owners shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years did not apply because the applicant was not requesting the natural resource zone. There was consensus by the Planning Commission to accept the staff finding on (5). Ms. Hansen again referring to page 2 of the July 16, 2007 memorandum from Ms. Hansen to the Planning Commission, reviewed the outstanding issues identified in the “parking lot” memo. Statewide Planning Goals • Goal 2—Need to revisit depending on final recommendation: deferred • Goal 7—Floodplain information/road elevations/history of 1964 flood: Flooding was a concern blocking access roads. Neither the road elevations nor the history of the 1964 flood were in the record. FEMA maps showing the flood plain and road locations were in the record. There were some unanswered questions that should be raised at the City Council level in order to get the information into the record. There was no information in the record about when streets were built. There was consensus that Goal 7 had been met, but concerns raised by Commissioners and recorded by staff should be included in the recommendation to the City Council. Staff agreed to draft language for review by the Commission. On a straw poll, the question: If Goal 7 is site specific, the Planning Commission was satisfied that the criteria had been met. However, should Goal 7 be shown to apply beyond the site itself, the information in the record was insufficient to determine if Delta Highway complied with Goal 7 in terms of hazards and accessibility in terms of protecting lives, the Commission voted 5:0, in support of the statement. • Goal 12—A “local government may approve an amendment (OAR 660-00012- 0060(3)): There was concern expressed by Commissioners on how traffic mitigation, such as queuing distances, trip caps and ramp metering would be addressed. Use of may gave discretion to local government to consider extreme measures. There needed to be clear findings if OAR 660-00012-0060(3) was exercised. Commissioners discussed the data presented in Tables 21 and 22. Ms. Jerome stated all of the evidence in the record was related to the trip cap, and therefore, a trip cap must be MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 5  imposed because it had not been demonstrated that anything above the trip cap could be accommodated. The trip cap was related to additional uses that could be allowed on the site. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and McKenzie-Willamette assumed a hospital of at least 148 beds and expansion for up to an additional 50 beds, and a lower number was not supported by the City Council. The TIA was based upon 198 beds, and 423,000 square feet of hospital with 100,000 square feet of ancillary medical services. In a straw poll, the statement: The TPR was met under Goal 12, based upon the data presented in Tables 20 and 21, the Commission voted 3:2, in support of the statement. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and recorded by staff would be documented for transmission to the City Council. Metro Plan • Policy 10 and other policies of the Eugene Commercial Lands Study: Completed at July 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. • Emergency vehicle access—physical means: referred to Refinement Plan issue Impact of emergency traffic on existing sand and gravel trucks discussion identified in July 16, 2007 memorandum. • Sufficient emergency access: referred to Refinement Plan issue Impact of emergency traffic on existing sand and gravel trucks discussion identified in July 16, 2007 memorandum. • North Delta Highway/Ayres Road intersection—emergency access to site: referred to Refinement Plan issue Impact of emergency traffic on existing sand and gravel trucks discussion identified in July 16, 2007 memorandum. • Metro Plan Policies: B-6, E-4, F-10, F-13, F-14, G-1, and J-8: B-6: Staff would draft findings for Planning Commission review based upon previous discussions and information in the record. E-4: Site review, safety, increased light and noise pollution for the neighborhood had not been adequately addressed, thus the criterion unmet, on a 4:1 straw poll. Staff would draft findings for Planning Commission review. F-10: It was the responsibility of public agencies to protect and manage infrastructure, and not the responsibility of private parties. The applicant had not proven that transportation system would not be compromised under the proposed plan, and warranted further investigation. On a straw poll of 5:0, the Planning Commission concurred that the proposal did not satisfy F-10. F-13: There was consensus to drop this issue from further consideration. F-14: Issues related to accommodating emergency vehicles would be addressed through road design. On a straw poll of 5:0, the Planning Commission concurred that the proposal satisfied F-14. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 6  G-1: On a straw poll of 5:0, the Planning Commission concurred that the proposal satisfied G-1. J-8: On a straw poll of 3:2, the Planning Commission concurred that the proposal did not comply with J-8. Planning Commissioners agreed to continue the discussion on July 24, 2007. Mr. Hledik adjourned the meeting at 2:05 p.m. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Hledik adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 2:05 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) c:\documents and settings\cemnllh\desktop\linda\2007\07 july\pc070723.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 7