Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue September 17, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, member; Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Ken Guzowski, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney’s Office; Charles Biggs, Rob Handy, Deborah Brewer, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; John Lawless, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: SUMMER OAKS/CRESCENT CENTER HOTEL Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5452 Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applications based on: 1) as Exhibit A to the September 17, 2007, Agenda Item Summary, except for the Goal 12 findings on pages 4—6 of Exhibit A; 2) the alternate Goal 12 findings attached as Exhibit A-1 to the September 17, 2007 Agenda Item Summary; 3) conditions of approval imposing a Floor Area Ratio of .70 and a trip cap of 213 PM peak hour trips for any future uses on the site; and, 4) with changes to staff findings on page 1-24, paragraph 2, sentence 4: Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude the net effect of the proposed plan amendment and zone change with the trip cap will result in appears to be an overall reduction in the total number of trips on the surrounding transportation facilities’ thus, with the trip cap, the allowed land uses would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards of the impacted transportation facilities. Mr. McCown withdrew his second. 5) with changes to staff findings on page 1-23, paragraph 4, first sentence to reference the specific date of the original TIA applying to the subject property. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 1  Mr. McCown seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher voting in opposition. II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Staff: Lisa Gardner, 682-5208 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 2  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue September 17, 2007 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Ken Guzowski, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney’s Office; Charles Biggs, Rob Handy, Deborah Brewer, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, President; John Lawless, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Hledik convened the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, addressed nodal development. He expressed concern there was an erosion of the goals and objectives in the Cal Young neighborhood. One node on Crescent Avenue was divided and further division by zone change and transportation decisions and would be detrimental to the success of nodes in general. Rob Handy, 455 ½ River Road, addressed code amendments and storm water. The natural storm water drainage was important to the basin and to improving relations with the City of Eugene, Lane County, and the neighbors. In the code amendment process it was important to consider 204, 206 and 209 as a package. Mr. Belcher arrived at 11:38 a.m. Mr. Handy urged the Planning Commission look at consider another round of code amendments since only a small portion would be reviewed through the current process. Deborrah Brewer, Governmental Affairs Coordinator, Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), P.O.Box 10148 distributed a letter to the Planning Commission dated September 17, 2007. EWEB requested that a work item related to updating the Eugene Code (EC) to protect solar access be placed in the Planning Division FY08 Work Program. Ms. Brewer noted EWEB had made the request during the Minor Code Amendment process and had been told it was best to address solar access through the Work Program. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 3 I. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: SUMMER OAKS/CRESCENT CENTER HOTEL Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5452 Ms. Siegenthaler offered the staff report. On August 14, 2007 the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed refinement plan amendment, code amendment and zone change for property owned by Western Steel, Inc., and MVMM Edwards Investment LLC. The record was left open at that time. The subject property was a 4.14 acre site, comprised of two parcels identified as Lots 4 and 5 of the Summer Oaks— Crescent Center Subdivision (Tax Lot 5100 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-16-23 and Tax Lot 1200 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-16-32), located east of Coburg Road, between Crescent Avenue and Chad Drive, on the east side of Suzanne Way. The applicant for this request was Arlie and Company. The applicant requested approval of the following: 1. Refinement Plan Amendment (RA 06-4) to amend Inset Map D of the Coburg/Crescent Subarea Section of the Willakenzie Area Plan to re-designate the 4.14 acre site from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan text to provide new policy language supporting the Community Commercial designation and reducing the required Floor Area Ratio for the subject site from 1.0 to .70. 2. Zone Change (Z 06-24) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning of C- 1/SR/ND, Neighborhood Commercial with Site Review overlay zone and Nodal Development overlay zone, to C-2/SR/ND Community Commercial with Site Review overlay zone and Nodal Development overlay zone. 3. Code Amendment (CA 07-1) to amend the Eugene Land Use Code 9.9700 to incorporate amended policy language in the Willakenzie Area Plan supporting a Community Commercial designation and a Floor Area Ratio of .70 for the site. Ms. Siegenthaler said the staff response to questions from commissioners and the applicant’s rebuttal to the staff response were included the Agenda Item Summary for today’s meeting. The staff recommendation had not changed, noting that the application did not provide sufficient data to comply with Goal 12 or the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), and thus staff could not make a positive recommendation on the application. It was important to keep the application moving forward to meet the scheduled City Council public hearing date. Staff provided a set of Goal 12 findings and a set of alternate motions, copies of which were distributed, for consideration by the commission. Mr. Hledik stated he had not attended the August 14, 2007 public hearing, but he had listened to a recording of the meeting. Mr. Hledik opened the floor to comments from commissioners. Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Ms. Siegenthaler the applicants for the original PUD for the property would have completed a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the specific PUD approval. The specific PUD approval consisted of several uses that were not specifically proposed for the application. Thus, while the TIA related to the specific site, it was not relevant to the range of uses proposed for the site under the application being MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 4 considered. Ms. Hansen added PUD and associated TIA was for a 10 acre development that consisted of the existing C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoned area. Comprehensive Plan and Refinement Plan amendments were required to comply with Goal 12, while other standards existed for the TIA prepared for the PUD. Ms. Kneeland acknowledged there was a need to reconcile how to measure traffic impacts to 2015, the end of the planning period, but she questioned how the Planning Commission felt about getting there by accepting the evidence before the commission as opposed to asking for an extensive report. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Hansen said there had only been five or six requests since the TPR was updated in 2005, each very different from the others. Not until the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center request was submitted was the TPR so highly scrutinized, which was now reflected in the staff findings for Summer Oaks/Crescent Center. Additionally, staff’s knowledge and understanding had expanded since the 2005 update. Mr. Hledik said it would worthwhile for City of Eugene and ODOT staff to work through the interpretation of the TPR in light of 2005 update and some inconsistencies, to determine how the TPR would be interpreted for future projects. He opined there were two choices: Either the applicant could move forward with the existing PUD with some unidentified traffic impact at the end of the planning period; or, if the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the reduced traffic cap, i.e., if the traffic impact was reduced today, it would carry forward to reducing a traffic impact in the future. He said the only precedent that would be set would be in a scenario in which an applicant brought forth a pre-approved TIA from a previous land use action and was proposing a reduction in traffic. He asserted the applicant for the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center project was caught between two interpretations. He noted that although ODOT had stated that the TPR in the application did not comply with the letter of the law, ODOT had no objection to it moving forward. Mr. Hledik supported moving the application forward. Mr. Carroll was concerned about setting precedents and broadening the definition of the term measure, which left the door open for further broadening in the future. If the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to approve, the findings must be tailored to this application. He did not want to rely on a trip cap to satisfy Goal 12. He interpreted the applicant’s proposed trip cap was that of an insurance policy. He preferred to find there was no significant impact on the transportation facility in the planning year for logical, mathematical reasons, that the proposed use reduced the overall trips. He asked if the commission was interested in requesting a condition of approval similar to that requested from McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center related to the proposal itself. Ms. Hansen she understood that the purpose of the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center proposal differed from the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center proposal in that it was not a proposal for a specific use. Ms. Brotherton said the only way the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center application was getting past the significant effect under Goal 12 was with the proposed mitigation of the trip cap. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 5 She explained with the McKenzie-Willamette project, the applicant used the worst case scenarios for the proposed zone change, and the trip cap was used as a condition of approval but not as a mitigation measure. The Summer Oaks/Crescent Center plan amendment application however used the trip cap as a mitigation measure to. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Siegenthaler said there were no mitigation measures other than the trip cap for the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center application. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher Ms. Siegenthaler concurred that the previous Summer Oaks/Crescent Center PUD application was not required to show compliance with the TPR for 2015. Ms. Hansen directed the commissioners to the Goal 12 findings and staff findings for compliance in 2015. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Brotherton said the 2015 analysis showed if there was a significant effect and what type of mitigation measures were needed to get back to the required level of service. The flaw in assuming a significant effect today would be the same significant effect in 2015 was that the level of service in 2015 was unknown, and the mitigation also unknown. She added it was important to impose logic and reason in the TPR. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Hansen noted the ODOT acceptance of the trip cap was but one piece of evidence to take into consideration. Mr. Belcher opined by approving the proposed zone change request, a lower standard would be established for such requests in the future. He asked how relevant TIAs were that were completed in the past. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Ms. Hansen said the applicant had prepared a new TIA for the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center plan amendment application. Responding to a question from Mr. McCown, Ms. Siegenthaler said an application submitted today under the approved PUD and existing C-1 zoning, a demonstration of compliance for TPR would not be triggered. Responding to a question from Mr. McCown, Ms. Brotherton said this application was fact specific. The issue was on assumptions that could be made if the applicant conceded significant effect today could it also be conceded in 2015 without supplying any numbers. She added that the current TPR language related to the end of the planning period was derived from the Jaqua case, in which all mitigations were tied to the end of the planning period. Ms. Brotherton understood the ODOT interpretation to mean that the proposal did not comply with the letter of the TPR but in the big picture, the number of trips would be reduced. Responding to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Gardner said a local code would not override the State TPR, but it would diminish the impact of the Summer Oaks/Crescent Center decision establishing precedent for future applications. He was concerned that the necessary local legislative code may or may not be approved, or how long it would take for the new code language to be adopted. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Gardner said if the Planning Commission approved the request it would be in compliance with the intent of the TPR, that being to reduce the number of trips. Ms. Brotherton opined the proposal would not swing the doors wide open to bad precedent, because of the specificity of the proposal. Mr. Belcher asked that the findings include a reference stating when the TIA for the project was completed, to prevent outdated TIA data from being used in the future. Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applications based on: 1) as Exhibit A to the September 17, 2007, Agenda Item Summary, except for the Goal 12 findings on pages 4—6 of Exhibit A; 2) the alternate Goal 12 findings attached as Exhibit A-1 to the September 17, 2007 Agenda Item Summary; 3) conditions of approval imposing a Floor Area Ratio of .70 and a trip cap of 213 PM peak hour trips for any future uses on the site; and, 4) with changes to staff findings on page 1-24, paragraph 2, sentence 4: Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude the net effect of the proposed plan amendment and zone change with the trip cap will result in an overall reduction in the total number of trips on the surrounding transportation facilities thus, with the trip cap, the allowed land uses would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards of the impacted transportation facilities. Mr. Belcher offered a friendly amendment, to add the following: Additionally, the findings would reflect the date of the TIA that was completed. Following a brief discussion, Mr. McCown withdrew his second. Mr. Carroll further moved: 5) with changes to staff findings on page 1-23, paragraph 4, first sentence to reference the specific date of the original TIA applying to the subject property. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher voting in opposition. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Gardner agreed to bring the trip cap issue back to the commission for discussion at a future meeting. Mr. Belcher said it was always a challenge when approving a generic zone change, rather than a request for a specific use. He trusted his Planning Commission colleagues would take appropriate action when it considered it in the future. Mr. Duncan arrived at 12:20 p.m. at which time Mr. Hledik turned the gavel to Mr. Duncan. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 7 II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Staff: Lisa Gardner, 682-5208 Mr. Guzowski distributed the following handouts: • We Want Your Input! • Planning Division’s Work Plan matrix. Mr. Guzowski reviewed the matrix noting the changes that were incorporated from last week’s meeting. Planning Commissioners offered suggestions that were recorded by staff for inclusion in the next draft. Ms. Gardner and Mr. Guzowski briefly reviewed the Annual Report document. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner introduced Felicity Fahy, the City of Eugene Sustainability Manager. B. Other Items from Commission Commissioners briefly discussed the recent Oregon Planning Institute Statewide Planning Conference September 12-14, 2007 at the University of Oregon and the Planning Commissioner Training on September 15. Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) c:\documents and settings\cemnllh\desktop\linda\2007\09 september\pc070917.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2007 Page 8