Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall, 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 18, 2007 6 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Heather O’Donnell, Gabe Flock, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Transportation Analyst for the Public Works Department. ABSENT: Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: Oregon West Management (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3) Assessor’s Map: 17-04-11-41 Tax Lot: 9100, 9200, 9300 Assessor’s Map: 17-04-11-44 Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900 Location: East side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane; 7.3 acres north of Green Lane and 1.3 acres south of Green Lane at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane Applicant: Steve Graves, Oregon West Management LLC Property Owner: Santa Clara Properties, LLC Representative: Michael Howard, Satre Associates, P.C. Lead City Staff: Heather O’Donnell, Associate Planner (541) 682-5488 Nature of the Requests Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to change 7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation of Commercial, and to change 1.3 acrs ot the site south of Gfreen Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential. Refinement Plan Change: (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from a designation of Governemnt and Education to a designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan text to include site specific development requirements. Zone Change: (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing zoning SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing of PL and C-1, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from R-1, Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays. SUMMARY MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing  Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber – Eugene City Hall – 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 18, 2007 6 p.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Anne Kneeland, John Lawless, members; Heather O’Donnell, Gabe Flock, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Transportation Analyst for the Public Works Department. ABSENT: Phillip Carroll, Anthony McCown, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan called the meeting to order. He indicated the purpose of the hearing was to accept public testimony on a plan amendment and zone change. Members of the commission introduced themselves. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE: Oregon West Management (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, Z 07-3) Assessor’s Map: 17-04-11-41 Tax Lot: 9100, 9200, 9300 Assessor’s Map: 17-04-11-44 Tax Lot: 200, 300, 400, 1900 Location: East side of River Road, south of Hunsaker Lane; 7.3 acres north of Green Lane and 1.3 acres south of Green Lane at 2685 River Road & 84 Green Lane Applicant: Steve Graves, Oregon West Management LLC Property Owner: Santa Clara Properties, LLC Representative: Michael Howard, Satre Associates, P.C. Lead City Staff: Heather O’Donnell, Associate Planner (541) 682-5488 Nature of the Requests Metro Plan Amendment (City file MA 07-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram to change 7.3 acres of site north of Green Lane from a designation of Low Density Residential to a designation of Commercial, and to change 1.3 acre on the site south of Green Lane from a MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential. Refinement Plan Change: (City file RA 07-1) to amend the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram to change approximately 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from a designation of Government and Education to a designation of Commercial; to change 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from a designation of Commercial to a designation of Medium Density Residential; and to amend the refinement plan text to include site specific development requirements. Zone Change: (City file Z 07-3) to rezone 7.3 acres of the site north of Green Lane from the existing zoning of PL and C-1, Public Land zone and Neighborhood Commercial zone, to C- 2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays; and to rezone 1.3 acres of the site south of Green Lane from R-1, Low Density Residential zone to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Site Review overlays. Mr. Duncan asked the commissioners to indicate any ex parte contacts and/or conflicts of interest, as per Eugene Code (EC) 9.7065. No commissioners had any disclosures to make. Mr. Duncan stated that his firm had been involved in an appraisal of one of the properties. He stressed that he had not been directly involved in it and that it had not biased him in anyway. Ms. O’Donnell provided the staff report. She explained that the only item in the hearing was a request for approval of a Metro Plan amendment, a Refinement Plan amendment, and a zone change. She reviewed the changes in detail. She stated that public notice of the proposal was mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements. She noted that two letters had been received and were attached to the agenda packet on page 315, received from Patricia Gilbert and from Kate Perle who wrote on behalf of the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO). She said staff had received one additional letter of testimony from Sue Prichard, 2671 Emerald Street, that had been in general support of the proposal. Ms. O’Donnell wished to recognize efforts by the applicant, the applicant’s representatives, and the neighborhood group who had met several times on the proposal. She noted that the applicant had revised the application in response to both staff and neighborhood comments. Ms. O’Donnell reiterated that staff was not able to recommend approval based on the available information. Staff had found that the proposal met quantitative requirements such as compliance with statewide planning Goal 12 and the transportation planning goal. She noted that the applicant had brought to staff’s attention that the staff report cited previous Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for Goal 9 and after further review staff believed that Goal 9 had been met by the application. She said based on the revised OAR the commercial land study analysis was more relevant as a refinement of the Metro Plan. She entered into the record a memorandum from staff that explained the revised OAR and relocated the commercial land study analysis to the analysis of consistency with the Metro Plan. Ms. O’Donnell stated, regarding the overall policy direction, particularly the policies and findings of the refinement plans, that it was staff’s opinion that the policies provide direction to build less commercial development and a higher density residential development in this particular location. She said the land in this area was recognized as having adequate commercial land supply but MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing lacking in higher density residential land. She reiterated that the policy direction seemed to support more residential development and less commercial development. She indicated that if the Planning Commission found the proposal did meet the criteria, staff had included conditions of approval in the staff report. Steve Graves, 4135 Torrey Lane, thanked the commissioners for serving their community. He stated that his plan was to develop the former Santa Clara Elementary School site into a Mixed Use development. He said the plan voluntarily restricted the size and height of any buildings and that he had incorporated a gathering area into it. He added that some architectural elements from the former school would be retained. The design incorporated pedestrian-friendly shopping streets in order to create a sense of community with the buildings and to avoid a “strip mall” look. He related that in conjunction with designers they had created tree-lined shopping streets with landscaping zones. He underscored that the housing element was “part and parcel” of the application. He averred that the residential units would benefit from the close proximity to the shopping center. He intended to dedicate land along Hunsaker Lane in order to improve the road, as per the City’s requirements, and also to improve signalization at the intersection of Hunsaker Lane and River Road. He predicted that the type of commercial enterprises that would become part of the development would be dictated by the community. He believed the need for additional retail space in the Santa Clara area was great. Rick Satre, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, applicant’s representative, reiterated that the applicant was seeking approval to build a Mixed Use Residential/Commercial development. He averred that the development would result in a “quality addition to the fabric of the Santa Clara neighborhood.” He said Mr. Graves had reached out to the neighborhood and had tried to find common ground with residents. Mr. Satre underscored that 50 dwelling units were planned between the properties, including a newly purchased property. Mr. Satre acknowledged that staff had found 13 Metro Plan policies that were applicable to the requests, within the four plan elements of residential and housing, economic, transportation, and public facilities and services. He said the record showed that the application was consistent with the latter two. He stated that of the 13 policies staff analyzed they had found consistencies with six of them. Mr. Satre discussed the seven inconsistencies with policies, six of them related to the residential element and one with the economic. He believed the proposal promoted higher residential density and that it used existing resources. He averred that the proposal was in line with the policy regarding the location of higher density residential development to transportation as it could not be “any closer” to transportation facilities. He acknowledged that a common theme in the policies was that density should be increased via infill development and redevelopment and another theme was to expand opportunities through mixed use. He noted that staff did agree that the proposal met the Metro Plan definition of mixed use, but felt the issue lay in the amount of commercial development in the proposal. Mr. Satre declared that the proposed development was located in a commercial area. He stressed that the school had been surrounded on three sides by commercial uses. He said the refinement plan identified the school property as being located in an existing commercial area though the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing school itself had not been so zoned. He pointed out that the refinement plan was 20 years old and asked the commissioners to think about when the statement had been made to the effect that there was sufficient commercial supply. He reviewed several different area plans and the storm basin plan. He asserted that the supply of residential lands in the River Road/Santa Clara area in 1998 had been 4.06 percent, while the city average had been 3.8 percent. He said the share of commercially designated land had been 4.64 percent citywide, but it had been 3.63 percent in the River Road/Santa Clara area. He felt the effectiveness of the statement was questionable given the length of time that had transpired. Continuing, Mr. Satre delineated with a graph the proportionate share of commercial area within all of the mixed use commercial centers in the Trans Plan map as well as the proportionate share of residential lands. He believed if one looked at the average for Medium Density Residential it appeared that it was 17 percent and that for the Santa Clara area the average was 28 percent. He said one might conclude that there was enough Medium Density Residential. He averred that the average of commercial lands in the potential mixed use centers was 45 percent but for the Santa Clara it was at 33 percent. He asserted that one could rethink the statement that there was “plenty” of commercial land in that area. Mr. Satre reviewed an email from City staff to the School District 4J that indicated the feeling that the land use designations should not be interpreted to prejudice future land use amendments to support nodal development. He noted that it also indicated that staff would not oppose any other land use designation that the City Council might agree upon. Mr. Satre reiterated that the applicant had been listening to staff and to the neighborhood. He said the applicant would continue to listen in order to balance the need for increased residential units and the demands for increased commercial lands. He stated that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would require site reviews and further modifications could be made to the proposal. Mr. Duncan called for testimony from others in support of the plan amendments and zoning change. Will Isham, 4064 Meredith Court, supported the applicant. He said he had reviewed Mr. Graves’ plans and was pleased to see that it did not appear like just another strip mall or large grocery. He felt Mr. Graves was listening to residents’ input. He averred that the plans he had seen represented a quality development for the neighborhood. Candy McAndrews, 4159 Victoria Lane, spoke in support of the applicant. She said she had been excited by Mr. Graves’ plans. She felt that Santa Clara lacked certain services, noting that she wanted a franchised barista in the area. She thought the development would allow area residents to drive less and would be good for the air and environment as a result. Lindsey Eichner, 2860 Federal Place, supported the application. She said there were not very many amenities within walking distance of the Santa Clara area. She liked the layout that Mr. Graves had provided. She believed it would increase the quality of life of area residents and would make Santa Clara more “beautiful.” Goldwin Eichner, 2827 Calla Street, related that six large housing developments had been built MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing in the area in which he lived. He felt the applicant’s proposed development would add health to the area and the application should be approved. Michael Chalmers, 4005 Shenstone Drive, supported the applicant’s position. He noted that on the top of page 30 in Attachment A it had been suggested that the site could be publicly owned and a green space. This had caused him concern as he did not wish to bring his children to play in a place adjacent to such a heavily trafficked road. He said a park would also require some onsite parking and he believed parking “would eat up” area from a park. He hoped that a larger site near Madison Middle School would be utilized for park land. Greg Herbert, 2005 Law Lane, supported the commercial zone change for the Santa Clara school site. He said he represented a client that was seeking a commercial site in the River Road/North Eugene area. He thought his client would make “positive” use of the proposed development. He noted that he had grown up in the River Road area. Curt Meili, 3561 Merryvale, spoke in favor of Oregon West Management’s application for zoning changes to the old Santa Clara school site. He averred that the applicant’s plans met many of the City of Eugene’s goals for infill and redevelopment. He felt the application addressed both the commercial and residential needs of the area. He believed the development would add needed commercial development and would also put less pressure on the commercial sprawl, which would help preserve existing farm lands to the north. Clayton Walker, 1225 Lawrence Street, asked the commissioners to consider the demand for commercial properties and the lack of supply. He understood that the 20-year old study was the “law of the land” but he felt that anyone who drove around would understand that there were very few commercial properties left to develop in the area. He said the subject property was surrounded by commercial uses. He thought the dimensions and size of the property as well as its depth and configuration supported its use for commercial purposes. He underscored that good commercial sites were significant for three qualities: visibility, access, and proximity to market. He supported the application for the Santa Clara school site as it had all three of those qualities. Daniel Cooper gave testimony unrelated to the plan amendments and zoning change. Mr. Duncan called for testimony from interested people who were neither proponents nor opponents. Seeing none, he called for testimony in opposition to the item before the Planning Commission. Ellen Hyman, 3863 Dorchester Lane, wanted a “true” community center. She was not “that opposed” to the proposal but she wanted the commercial property to be restricted to C-1 and not C-2. She feared that allowing it to be zoned C-2 would bring “big box” stores. She felt the area had enough larger developments. She opined that the recent development of a large grocery store had not panned out to be as it had been proposed, but had become a big box store. She said the loss of the school had been hard on the community. She averred that the developers were not thinking of what was important to area residents. Kate Perle, 4740 Wendover Street, disagreed that the area was a commercial area. She believed that it was predominantly a residential area. She said there were policies in the River Road/Santa Clara Facilities Plan that specifically discouraged commercial rezoning along River Road. She MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 5 Public Hearing felt River Road was being “turned into” another West 11th Avenue. She viewed the proposal as segregated land use and not a mixed land use as one parcel would be residential and the other was being requested to be changed to C-2, commercial. She averred that the plan did not supply adequate dwellings. She asserted that there were several pieces of C-2 land that were vacant and available and underscored the request to keep the land zoned C-1. Catherine Lesiak, 1600 East Beacon Drive, said it was the City’s responsibility to answer to the present and future needs of its citizens and to consider the environment. She opined that the citizens of Santa Clara did not need more C-2 developments; rather it needed more restaurants and smaller retail stores. She did not think the area needed more traffic or more impervious parking lots. She declared that Santa Clara needed a community center, a “place with soul.” She believed the future would not be based on automobile travel as the petroleum industry would not last forever. She underscored her feeling that C-2 zoning was not the best use for former public lands. Dawn Lesley, 4495 River Road, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle. She said the Planning Commission had the opportunity to “draw a line in the sand” against big box stores and parking lots. Joan Haworth-Liu, 100 Green Lane, said she was a member of the third generation to own Green Lane property next to one of the subject properties. She related that having lived through changes she and her family had decided to rezone their property to GO, General Office. She pointed out that the circled property on Exhibit E-2 submitted by Oregon West Management was her property. She asked the commission to refer to Recommendation #4 out of the Oregon West Management application materials which stated that rezoned parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane were for professional office use and to understand that this text included her property. She submitted her testimony in writing. Keith Walton, 1640 Beacon Drive, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle and Ms. Lesiak. Mr. Duncan called for staff response to the testimony. Ms. O’Donnell clarified that when they had gone through the 2004 plan cleanup it was intended to better reflect the refinement sub-plans. She said Attachment 8 and the memorandum from Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter delineated evidence of why staff had struggled with the proposal and, based on the evidence, had arrived at the conclusion that designating the entire property as commercial could be contrary to the adopted policies. She also related that staff did not feel that the Government and Education designation in the refinement plan was inconsistent with the Low Density Residential designation in the Metro Plan. She stated that there was a requirement in the land use code that the Metro Plan would overrule the refinement plan only where inconsistencies applied. Mr. Duncan called for questions for staff. Mr. Duncan seemed to remember, regarding the “blob diagram,” that a change had occurred in it. He recalled a discussion on the properties that were public lands at the time and that it had been determined that those lands would default to residential. He asked for some clarity on why this change in the procedure had occurred when they had gone through the “housekeeping process” MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 6 Public Hearing with regard to the diagram. He asked what had occurred with the public lands at the time that had not been looked at as available for future development. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the information she had was similar to what the applicant had just submitted in Attachment 8, wherein the site in question had been reviewed and it had been determined that it should not be designated as commercial at that time because of the same River Road refinement plan policies that staff is struggling with now as discussed on the last page of the submitted email from Kurt Yeiter. Mr. Duncan called for rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Satre said he would like an explanation for why public land would default to Low Density Residential zoning in the River Road/Santa Clara plan. He averred that the projected need in the 1987 refinement plan for commercial property in the area was 174 acres and in 1989 there were only 161 acres potentially available. He noted that this was a combination of the commercial property in use and the available vacant lands. Mr. Satre noted that it had been mentioned in testimony that there was a lot of vacant C-2 property in the area. He disputed this. He noted that one of the properties cited was under construction. He asserted that if demand was not exceeding the supply of commercial land it was “at least giving it a run for the money.” He reminded the commission that the existing property was not completely zoned Low Density Residential as a portion of it was zoned C-1. He noted that it had been asserted in testimony that over 100 homes could be built on the property. He felt this did not take into consideration the existing C-1 zoning nor did it consider the land needed for public rights of way and infrastructure. Mr. Satre reiterated the applicant’s intention to develop 50 dwelling units. He asserted that this would not diminish capacity on the site. He reiterated that the utilization of this property as the applicant proposed would have an impact on the miles driven by neighborhood residents by bringing commercial services closer to home. Ms. Kneeland wondered if the plans as the applicant conceived of them were not consistent with C-1 zoning. Mr. Satre replied that C-1 limited commercial enterprises to 5,000 square feet. He stated that the applicant indicated that he would voluntarily limit the size of commercial enterprises to 18,000 square feet, which was substantially less than the size permitted by C-2 zoning. He averred that this would not allow a “big box” store to be established there. He commented that if there was such a zoning as a “C-1.5” this would be the zoning change that the applicant would seek. Mr. Hledik asked if a map was available that indicated the build out of commercial lands along River Road and showed which were vacant and which were occupied. Mr. Flock replied that he did not think such a map was readily available. He added that the map staff had was the one adopted in the Refinement Plan. Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing and closed the record. Ms. O’Donnell said deliberation was tentatively scheduled for November 5. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing Mr. Belcher asked if a public hearing before the City Council had been scheduled. Ms. O’Donnell replied that it had not been scheduled at this point. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the commissioners could email questions to staff. He cautioned them against any sort of deliberation prior to the public meeting for that purpose. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 7:47 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 18, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing