Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue November 5, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Heather O’Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Julie Lenninger, Steve Graves, Rick Satre, Rob DeAmerit, Mike Howard, Richard Maris, Jim Spickerman. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 13, 14, and September 17 and 24, 2007. Mr. McCown , seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the August 6, 13, and September 24, 2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the August 14 and September 17, 2007 minutes be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT LLC PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 682-5488 III. DEBRIEF OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Staff: Lisa Gardner, 682-5208 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue November 5, 2007 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, President; Randy Hledik, Vice President Phillip Carroll, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Steve Nystrom, Heather O’Donnell, Planning and Development Department; Julie Lenninger, Steve Graves, Rick Satre, Rob DeAmerit, Mike Howard, Richard Maris, Jim Spickerman. ABSENT: Mike Sullivan, ex officio. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. There was consensus to change the order of the published agenda, swapping agenda items II and III. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no one wishing to offer public comment. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 13, September 24, 2007—no corrections. August 14, 2007 Page 5, paragraph 7, Mr. Carroll offered the following correction: Mr. Carroll said he was in agreement and generally support of the proposal. He understood staff’s position on the TPR issue, but because stated he felt the application was consistent with so many other criteria and supportive of the City’s mixed use development plans and looking at the compatible with surrounding uses, it uses. It was difficult to see how the proposal would reduce the level of service in the future. Page 5, paragraph 3, Mr. Lawless offered the following correction: 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 ground of insufficient findings. September 17, 2007 Page 5 paragraph 6, sentence 1, Mr. Hledik offered the following correction: MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 1  He opined there were two choices: Either the applicant cold 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. Page 7, paragraph 4, Mr. McCown offered the following correction: 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. Mr. McCown seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:1, with Mr. Belcher voting in opposition. Page 5, paragraph 3, Ms. Kneeland offered the following correction: 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. Mr. Duncan noted although Jon Belcher had been a member of the Planning Commission and in attendance at the meetings for which the minutes were approved, he was no longer a member of the Commission. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 2  Mr. McCown, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the August 6, 13, and September 24, 2007 minutes be approved as submitted, and that the August 14 and September 17, 2007 minutes be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. II. DEBRIEF OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Mr. Duncan stated he had received an email from Mayor Kitty Piercy who expressed her appreciation for the Commission’s input and work, adding she found the presentation very professional. Ms. Gardner thanked Commissioners for an excellent presentation. Ms. Gardner stated that staff would return to the City Council for a follow-up work session requested by the Council on November 28, 2007. She had requested via e-mail that Councilors submit questions in writing for staff to respond to. She added the Council would hold a joint meeting with other local elected officials after January 1, 2008. Mr. Hledik commended staff for their preparatory work for the joint meeting. Contrary to a comment by one City Councilor, Mr. Hledik had been approached after the meeting by another Councilor who averred the format used for the 2007 presentation was better than that previously used. Mr. Duncan stated Mayor Piercy had indicated support for broad lands study opposed to a land inventory, and other Councilors had asked for more detail. III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: OREGON WEST MANAGEMENT LLC PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGE Ms. O'Donnell offered the staff report. On October 18, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) land use diagram, amend the applicable refinement plan and approve a concurrent zone change for Oregon West Management, LLC. The applicant requested approval of Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments and a zone change that would result in 7.3 acres being rezoned to C-2/PD/SR, Community Commercial zone with Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Review overlays and 1.3 acres being rezoned to R-2/PD/SR, Medium Density Residential with PUD and Site Review overlays. The record was closed following the public hearing. Subsequently, the Planning Commission asked several questions, responses to which were provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for this agenda. Additionally, Ms. O'Donnell distributed a memorandum to the Eugene Planning Commission dated November 5, 2007, subject Additional Deliberation Questions for Oregon West Management, LLC, (MA 07-2, RA 07-1, and Z 07-3) that contained two questions not included in the October 29, 2007 AIS. Mr. Carroll and Mr. McCown stated they had not been at the October 18, 2007 public hearing but had listened to a recording of the meeting. Ms. O'Donnell said there were two main policy questions to resolve. Staff found that the proposal was inconsistent with the following: MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 3  • Metro Plan Policies A.10, A.11, A.12, A.13, A. 22 and A.23 because those policies supported a higher residential density on this site and less commercial; and, Policy B.6 because the adopted refinements plans indicated no demand for more commercial land in this area. • River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RRSC) Policies 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 5.0 because the policies and plan text did not support new commercial in the area, and if anything, supported Low Density Residential or a higher density residential. Ms. O'Donnell said if the Planning Commission did find the proposal consistent with the applicable policies, it would need to review the proposed refinement plan for compliance. Ms. O'Donnell distributed copies of a spreadsheet listing Store/Location and Approximate Square Feet of sixteen Big Box grocery and retail business after there was consensus by the Commission to acknowledge inclusion of the document in the public record. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. O'Donnell said there was no definition of strip commercial, however the code does contain a description of the location of those areas in II-G-5 of the Metro Plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom explained that as the Metro Plan diagrams evolved, the “blob” diagrams had been used for guidance and not as lot specific. Over time, changes in technology caused the blob diagrams to appear to be more site specific than they actually were. He said the recent housekeeping measures recognized the appropriate designations based upon the refinement plan policies and diagrams. Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, regarding how the subject site changed from a commercial and government/education designation to low density, Ms. O'Donnell said through the housekeeping measures the properties were designated low-density residential, noting the intent of the housekeeping measures was to make the Metro Plan better reflect the policies from the refinement plan. The refinement plan clearly showed the property as government and education, and included a number of policies that limited commercial. Mr. Duncan opined that the original Metro Plan diagram intended that at least some portion of the site would be zoned commercial, and moving away from that was a fairly major shift. Mr. Yeiter added there were a variety of factors considered when looking at all of the properties through the housekeeping process. Responding to a question from Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Nystrom said older versions of the acknowledged and adopted plans helped to guide any potential changes to the current plans. Mr. Duncan facilitated a review of the applicable statewide goals. He noted consensus with statewide goals. Mr. Duncan facilitated a discussion of the Metro Plan. Ms. Kneeland expressed discomfort with finding holes in the existing policies, and emphasized the need to stick to policies as written and maps as adopted. She was uncomfortable with trying to find ways around existing policies. Mr. McCown said the problem was created for the property through an unvetted process in 2004 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 4 by shifting the zoning from C-1 to R-1. It was fair to consider long term impacts to the property owner by changes in the policy through the action of the City. Mr. Hledik said other policies in the commercial and industrial lands section of the RRSC Plan that offered support for the applicant’s request and justified approval. • Policy 5 anticipated there would be additional commercial development and discussed the minimizing the impacts of new commercial development, in that it was intended to consolidate and improve existing strip commercial areas. • Policy 5 discussed actions that anticipated improving the sites, including landscaped parking lots on River Road frontage, consolidate and minimize access points on River Road and locating new development in proximity to other commercial uses. Policy 6 said new neighborhood commercial uses should be located away from River Road, which would prohibit C-1 in the area, while new commercial development other than C-1 would be allowed. The applicant’s were attempting to find the small scale commercial development between C-1 and C-2 that would fit in the area. Mr. Carroll said the applicant did a lot of work in light of the market demand and the City’s goals. While the proposed site plan was intriguing, he was in agreement with the staff findings, noting the policy direction was in favor of more housing, and a variety of housing forms. He said this was not an existing strip site. He could not support the application. Ms. Kneeland agreed with Mr. Carroll, that as crafted, the proposal did not meet the applicable policies. Mr. Lawless said there was not enough information to enable him to make a decision. Mr. Duncan said overall the applicant had supported their requests, but he was not comfortable with how changes occurred to the Metro Plan Map, and unfortunately, placed difficult requirements upon the applicant, since there was no text history of how the map changes occurred. While the refinement plan supported a portion of the site being commercial, he concurred with Mr. Lawless that there was insufficient information to make a decision at the present time. Mr. McCown said although he was leaning towards supporting the direction of the application, but he wanted time to more thoroughly consider the issues raised at today’s meeting. Mr. Duncan noted an even split in the support by Commissioners of the project as proposed. Ms. Gardner said the issue was scheduled to go to the City Council after January 1, 2008. The Commission’s discussion and split view would focus light on the issues the Council would consider and would provide the applicant with suggestions of what additional materials would be necessary to enable the Council to make a decision in their favor. The applicant could submit additional information when the City Council reopened the record. Staff would get back to the Planning Commission with possible dates to continue the discussion. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Gardner reported that four Planning Commission applications had been submitted. City MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 5 Council interviews were scheduled on November 19, if needed, and City Council action for board and commission appointments would take place on November 26, 2007. Ms. Gardner said the Portland State University planning commission training was being webcast and archived for future viewing. B. Other Items from Commission There were no items from Commission. Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2007\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc071105.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 6