Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon August 14, 2007 6 p.m. PRESENT: Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anne Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department, ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING/POSSIBLE ACTION ON CODE AND REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: Summer Oaks/Crescent Center (CA 07-1, RA 06-4, Z 06-24) Assessor’s Map: 17-03-16-23 Tax Lot: 5100 Assessor’s Map: 17-03-16-32 Tax Lot: 1200 Location: 2880 Crescent Avenue and 2645 Suzanne Way Applicant: Arlie & Company Property Owners: MVMM Edwards Investment LLC Western Steel, Inc. Representative: Teresa Bishow, Arlie & Company Lead City Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner (541) 682-5452 Nature of the Requests Code Amendment (City file CA 07-1) to amend the Eugene Lane Use Code 9.9700 to incorporate amended policy language in the Willakenzie Area Plan supporting a Community Commercial designation and Floor Area Ratio of .70 for the site. Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-4) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram to designate the site as Community Commercial and to amendment the Willakenzie Area Plan text to provide new policy language supporting the Community Commercial designation and supporting a reduction in the Floor Area Ratio for the subject site from 1.0 to .70. Zone Change: (City file Z 06-24) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning of C-1/SR/ND, Neighborhood Commercial zone with Site Review and Nodal Development overlay to C-2/SR/ND, Community Commercial zone with Site Review and Nodal Development overlay. SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing  Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to reopen the hearing. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to keep the public record open for two weeks, allowing one week for staff response and an additional week for information from the applicant or public. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing  Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon August 14, 2007 6 p.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Anne Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department, ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Lawless called the meeting to order. He indicated the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing and accept testimony. Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING/POSSIBLE ACTION ON CODE AND REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: Summer Oaks/Crescent Center (CA 07-1, RA 06-4, Z 06-24) Assessor’s Map: 17-03-16-23 Tax Lot: 5100 Assessor’s Map: 17-03-16-32 Tax Lot: 1200 Location: 2880 Crescent Avenue and 2645 Suzanne Way Applicant: Arlie & Company Property Owners: MVMM Edwards Investment LLC Western Steel, Inc. Representative: Teresa Bishow, Arlie & Company Lead City Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner (541) 682-5452 Nature of the Requests Code Amendment (City file CA 07-1) to amend the Eugene Lane Use Code 9.9700 to incorporate amended policy language in the Willakenzie Area Plan supporting a Community Commercial designation and Floor Area Ratio of .70 for the site. Refinement Plan Amendment (City file RA 06-4) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing diagram to designate the site as Community Commercial and to amendment the Willakenzie Area Plan text to provide new policy language supporting the Community Commercial designation and supporting a reduction in the Floor Area Ratio for the subject site from 1.0 to .70. Zone Change: (City file Z 06-24) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning of C- 1/SR/ND, Neighborhood Commercial zone with Site Review and Nodal Development overlay to C-2/SR/ND, Community Commercial zone with Site Review and Nodal Development overlay. Mr. Lawless asked commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, biases, abstentions or challenges to impartiality. There were no disclosures. Ms. Siegenthaler provided the staff report. She entered into the record a traffic impact analysis (TIA) dated August 9, 2007, and distributed a colored map of the sites and surrounding area to assist the discussion. She described the subject property and said the applicant was requesting a zone change from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2, Community Commercial and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) reduction from 1.0 to .70. She said those changes would require a change to the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) land use diagram and text, as well as a code amendment to include the WAP policy language, if approved, in the Eugene Land Use Code. Ms. Siegenthaler reviewed the key approval criteria, which included the WAP policies and the statewide planning goals. She staff had concluded the proposal met the WAP and Metro Plan policies and the statewide goals with the exception of Goal 12, transportation. She said the most significant policies of initial concern to staff were the WAP Policy 7, which was intended to encourage commercial uses that provided direct services to the neighborhood and the ND overlay zone; however, staff had concluded that C-2 uses were not inherently in conflict with the policies under the proposal. Ms. Siegenthaler said the main reason an FAR reduction was requested was the anticipated development of an extended-stay hotel and a catering business. She said the existing 1.0 FAR would not accommodate those uses. She said staff was recommending approval because it was not inconsistent with WAP policies or nodal development goals, as it was still a relatively high FAR and would accommodate a higher density, more efficient land use pattern and allow for a wider mix of uses. She said that there were precedents for FAR reduction in other nodes and in the Crescent Village development to the north. Ms. Siegenthaler said an important part of the applicant’s TIA was the existing planned unit development (PUD) approval, which formed the baseline for the applicant’s proposal for Goal 12 compliance. She said if built today, the approved PUD would generate 234 PM peak hour trips; under the current proposal there was a proposed trip cap of 213 PM peak hour trips, resulting in less traffic than what could be built today. She said the C-1 worse case scenario would generate 714 PM peak hour trips. She said the applicant’s proposal appeared to be a logical approach to addressing potential traffic impacts, but staff found it did not comply with the specific requirements of the transportation planning rule (TPR), which implemented Goal 12. She explained how Goal 12 compliance could be demonstrated and said that the August 9 TIA addressed most issues, with the exception that it did not examine impacts of the proposal for the local planning horizon of 2015. She said the TPR was quite specific about that requirement. Mr. Carroll asked why Neighborhood Commercial comprised 10 acres of the current PUD. Ms. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing Siegenthaler said there was a WAP policy that limited Neighborhood Commercial to ten acres, but she did not know how that amount was determined with the policy was established. Teresa Bishow, Arlie & Company, 871 Country Club Road, Eugene, representing the applicant and property owners, explained the City Council’s rational for the ten-acre limitation on Neighborhood Commercial in the WAP. She described the features and amenities of the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD and used an aerial photograph to illustrate development features of the site. She said that a hotel was a good fit for the neighborhood, would enhance the mixes of the node, generate less traffic than the approved 80,000 square foot office building and provide residents who would use neighborhood services. Ms. Bishow said the applicant strongly supported the ND overlay and was willing to retain the SR overlay. She used diagrams to identify current and proposed zoning designations. She said the basis for the zone change was a policy in the WAP the applicant wanted amended. She said the amendment would allow, through a new PUD, a reduction in the minimum required FAR and a trip cap to ensure traffic would not exceed what was anticipated in the existing, approved final PUD. George Swift, Western Steel Inc., 1105 Porter Way, Milton, Washington, owner of Lot 5, stated he had developed hotels for many years and his vision was to develop an attractive, high quality, residential extended-stay hotel. He felt the area had a need for a business of that nature, which was why he had selected the site. He felt that hotel clientele would benefit other businesses in the area, as the typical stay was 12 days. He said the nature of the hotel required 20 percent less parking and that would permit more landscaping. Mike Edwards, 2580 Edgewater Drive, Eugene, owner of Lot 4, said he and his wife owned two local businesses—Parties to Go and GPR Data—and their vision was to locate both of their businesses in a common facility with the opportunity to expand and also offer multiple uses such as specialty retail and office. He said they purchased their lot because the location was well suited to their purpose. Greg Brokaw, Rowell Brokaw Architects, 114 High Street, Eugene, used photographs to illustrate the FAR of various buildings on and near the site. He pointed out on the site plan the buildings that were permitted under the current PUD approval and demonstrated the difference between a 1.0 and .70 FAR and the associated parking space requirements. Brian Genovese, JRG Transportation Engineering, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, Suite 201, Eugene, reviewed the TIA for the original PUD, which had a mix of uses and trip generation rates. He said the buildings originally proposed for lots 4 and 5 were a restaurant and office building. He said the second TIA done in 2007 considered a different set of uses proposed by the current developers. He said the 2001 approved uses created an entitlement for those lots and a trip generation comparison between the initial and currently proposed uses indicated the current uses generated fewer trips; that was submitted with the application and deemed complete. He said approved uses would generate 234 PM peak hour trips and the proposed uses would generate 213 PM peak hour trips. He said a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation concluded that a full TRP analysis would not reach a different conclusion. Mr. Genovese said that City staff was reluctant to grant approval and additional analysis was MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing done to convince staff there was no significant impact from the proposed uses; that report was submitted on August 9, 2007. He reviewed the methodology used to determine there was no significant impact and the proposed uses created a more evenly balance traffic distribution pattern than the approved uses. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Genovese said the trip generation was based on phases 1, 2 and 3 of Crescent Village and the Crescent Village PUD and node were considered in the calculations. Ms. Kneeland asked for the applicant's response to City staff's concern that the TIA was deficient because it did not take into consideration the 2015 planning horizon. Mr. Genovese said he disagreed it was necessary to address the planning horizon as the TPR was clear that if the proposal's impact was deemed insignificant, that level of analysis was not required. Ms. Bishow added that the TRP was a way for the City to demonstrate compliance with Goal 12 and the degree that there were findings supporting that demonstration of compliance should be balanced with level of controversy, complexity of project and many other factors. She said the applicant believed a determination of compliance could be made and if there were objections later in the process, those findings could be bolstered if necessary. Ms. Siegenthaler commented that in April the applicant was asked to address the TPR, but there was disagreement between the applicant and City staff on what TRP required with respect to the planning horizon. She cited OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c) provisions that staff interpreted to mean that the planning horizon of 2015 had to be addressed in the TIA. She said that was the only deficiency in the TIA at this point. She agreed it was somewhat counter-intuitive, as the approved PUD would generate a higher trip count than the proposed uses but because the approval was not limited to a TIA for a PUD and included a proposed plan amendment, the findings must demonstrate compliance with the TRP provisions she had cited. She said ODOT indicated its letter that it appeared a traffic issue would not be created, but also specifically said it did not comply with TPR. Mr. Genovese said that generally a zone change had to comply with TPR findings, but the OAR provisions stated that required "…where it creates a significant effect." He believed that ODOT's point was that if the entitled trip count was stipulated to, it agreed with the findings, as there was no significant impact. Mr. Lawless asked if the effort required to do the planning horizon level of analysis was onerous. Mr. Genovese replied that it would require a much more sophisticated analysis using the Lane Council of Governments' (LCOG) transportation model that produced a more comprehensive look at the region's transportation system. Mr. Lawless asked if the difference between the entitled trip count under the currently approved PUD and the uses proposed by the applicant was considered significant. Ms. Siegenthaler said under the approved PUD there were 234 PM peak hours trips compared to 213 trips under the proposal, which was comparable. She said under the worst case C-1 scenario there were 700+ PM peak hour trips, which was significantly higher than the proposal. She said staff recognized that the traffic volumes under the proposal were less significant than what could currently be built, but TRP requirements did not address the issue of the current entitlement compared to proposed uses; it specifically defined how the significant impact was determined by looking at a MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing range of scenarios over the planning period. She said there were no findings to support the conclusion there was no significant effect and the specific provisions in the TPR. Mr. Lawless asked how worst case scenarios under C-1 and C-2 would compare. Ms. Siegenthaler said under C-2 the anticipated traffic volume was 1,196 PM peak hour trips; the proposal had significantly less impact. She said staff regarded the 213 PM peak hour trip cap as a mitigation measure proposed in compliance with TRP requirements, the analysis of potential significant effect out to the planning horizon was still missing. Ms. Bishow asked that the record remain open to allow the applicant to provide additional information if the commission was considering denying the application on the grounds of insufficient findings. Following a discussion of procedure, staff explained that the commission could close the hearing, deliberate with a focus on what additional information might be required without reaching a conclusion on the proposal and leave the record open for a period of time to receive additional written material. Staff indicated that additional staff response to support the staff recommendation could also be provided, including how the issue had been addressed in other jurisdictions. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing and called for deliberations by the commission. Mr. McCown remarked that if the initial TIA showed significant impact, it should address the 2015 planning horizon, but with an actual decrease in the trip cap under the proposed uses it was not necessary to extend the analysis. He was comfortable with the letter from ODOT and the materials submitted by the applicant. Mr. Carroll said he was in agreement and generally supportive of the proposal. He understood staff's position on the TPR issue, but stated he felt the application was consistent with so many other criteria and supportive of the City's mixed use development plans and compatible with surrounding uses. It was difficult to see how the proposal would reduce the level of service in the future. Mr. Belcher inquired if approving the application would establish a precedent for future applications. Ms. Siegenthaler said that was one of staff's concerns and the City's legal counsel had emphasized the need to adhere to TPR provisions and address the 2015 planning horizon. She said that new provisions required a greater level of detail in analysis than was required for previous applications, including the original application for the C-1 uses PUD. She noted that the adjacent Crescent Village development was proposed with a trip cap and that decision was not based on the level of analysis now required. Mr. Belcher asked if it was primarily the City's responsibility to assure TPR compliance. Ms. Siegenthaler said it was the City's responsibility and ODOT had an advisory role. Ms. Kneeland asked if the trip cap in the previous Crescent Village application was the reason the more extensive level of analysis was not required. Ms. Siegenthaler said she did not have that information. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 5 Public Hearing  Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved to reopen the hearing. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Genovese said the previous Crescent Village application did go through a planning horizon level of service analysis. Mr. Lawless asked how "significant impact" was defined. Mr. Genovese said that "significant" was not defined; it was the judgment of the decision-makers. He said from a traffic engineer's perspective, it would be defined as seeing a level of service or intersection performance diminished and that would only be considered if the proposed uses were greater than the entitled uses. He said uses that created a lower level of impact on the system would fall into the insignificant category. In response to a question from Mr. McCown, Mr. Genovese said a TIA looked at system impact consistent with zoning when a building was fully occupied. He said there were different levels of traffic impact analysis and those met different needs of agencies involved in the approval process. He said one analysis might address proposed development on vacant land and how the system would operate when it was developed and another might address gaining approval for specific uses on a piece of property. Ms. Siegenthaler said one of the distinctions between conducting a TIA for a proposed development project and providing findings that related to the TPR and Goal 12. She said the reason no TPR analysis was done for the original project was because there was no requested zone change. She explained that analysis was done at a project level and there was no legal threshold that would require Goal 12 findings for a PUD. Mr. Lawless commented that an analysis to the planning horizon would process all of the zone use intensities through LCOG's transportation model and project a snapshot of 2015. He questioned how an applicant's self-imposed trip cap could have an impact at 2015. Mr. Genovese said the LCOG model contained many components, identified as transportation analysis zones, and each had certain definitions of trip attractors and generators. He said if the boundaries did not align with properties it was necessary to adjust those zones, which was a very complex process. He said there were many other variables that had to be addressed, further complicating the process. Mr. Belcher asked if the analysis for the Crescent Village development across the street from the proposal would be useful to the applicant. Mr. Genovese replied that each analysis was unique and the different boundaries would have to be reviewed to determine what could be applied to the current application. He illustrated the various components of a TIA. Ms. Kneeland asked for clarification on whether staff felt there was a specific definition for "significant." Ms. Siegenthaler replied that the TPR provided a definition as cited previously in her remarks. Mr. Lawless closed the public hearing. He determined that commissioners were in agreement to leave the record open and asked that they identify what specific information might be requested. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 6 Public Hearing Mr. Carroll said he did not need any additional information but was supportive of leaving the record open for up to two weeks. Mr. Lawless and Mr. McCown concurred with Mr. Carroll's remarks. Mr. Belcher asked for information about any other deliberations where a proposed trip cap had abrogated the need for a planning horizon analysis. Ms. Kneeland said it would be helpful to have an explanation of what staff had relied upon for its interpretation, such as case law or other decisions. Mr. Yeiter said one of staff's concerns was how there could be findings about planning horizon impacts without addressing conditions at 2015. Ms. Gardner summarized that the issue seemed to be the crux of the commission's decision on the application and commissioners wanted more information on how the staff had arrived at its conclusions, which were the opposite of the applicant's conclusions. She agreed it would be helpful to leave the record open to allow the applicant to provided additional justification and staff to respond to commissioners' questions, at which point the record could be closed and the commission could deliberate to a decision. She suggested allowing one week for staff response and two weeks for additional information from the applicant. Mr. Carroll asked if staff could devise a scenario by which the proposal could be evaluated by the end of the planning horizon. Ms. Siegenthaler replied that staff provided the framework and relied upon the applicant for the specific analysis. Ms. Bishow suggested leaving the record open until September 17 in case the applicant needed to conduct a planning horizon analysis based on the staff response, as it would take a minimum of three weeks to accomplish the analysis. Ms. Gardner reiterated that staff would provide addition response justifying or perhaps modifying how its interpretation was made and the applicant would also have an opportunity during the two- week period to present additional information. She said if the commission determined that a planning horizon analysis was required, a new timeframe would need to be established. Mr. Belcher pointed out that if a full analysis was required the applicant would have time to conduct that prior to the matter going before the City Council. Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to keep the public record open for two weeks, allowing one week for staff response and an additional week for information from the applicant or public. Ms. Gardner clarified that the staff had until August 22 to provide its response and applicant could submit information during the entire two-week period until August 29. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission August 14, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing