Planning Commission

AGENDA EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION Phone: (541) 682-5481 Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682-5119. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 – PUBLIC HEARING (6:00 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS Land Use Application Timeline Extensions (City File CA 09-5) The proposed ordinance is subject to review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will follow the legislative procedures (Type V process) for its review of the proposal. After holding the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed ordinance. Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, 682-5697 Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff presentation 2. Open public hearing. 3. Questions from the Planning Commission. 4. Close public hearing. 5. Planning Commission discussion/action.  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 15, 2009 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Gabe Flock, Planning Division Subject: Public Hearing for Economic Development Code Amendments: Land Use Application Timeline Extensions (City File CA 09‐5) ACTION REQUESTED To hold a public hearing and begin deliberation (with possible action) on a proposed ordinance granting extensions to the expiration periods for approved land use applications. BRIEFING STATEMENT The proposed ordinance is subject to review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will follow the legislative procedures (Type V process) for its review of the proposal. After holding the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND Earlier this year, as part of the City’s recent economic recovery efforts, City Council moved to initiate proposed amendments that would grant timeline extensions for approved land use applications. The proposal is intended to allow more time for development projects to be completed, which have already undergone extensive public process and received City approval, but may be slowed down or stalled due to difficult economic conditions. If these land use approvals expire, the applicant is required to repeat the land use application process in order to move forward, which can be costly and time consuming. Several cities in Oregon including Portland, Bend and Gresham have recently amended local codes to grant similar extensions to land use approval timelines. Proposed legislation at the State level was also developed that would have granted two year extensions for permits and land use approvals (House Bill 3031, which ultimately did not pass). Several local jurisdictions have otherwise taken action to provide economic relief, similar to what was proposed in the last legislative session. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the ordinance is to provide a one‐time extension to all “effective” land use approvals. A number of options have been evaluated and a draft ordinance has been prepared for consideration (see Attachment A). Based on initial Council direction, and public input received, the proposed ordinance is drafted to grant an automatic 2‐year extension for Type II and Type III PC AGENDA, P1 approved land use applications that have not yet expired. It also automatically adjusts the timeline for future phases of any phased land use approvals by 2 years. These will include over 100 existing land use approvals which could expire without extension of the code mandated expiration period. As proposed, there would be no submittal requirements or processing time associated with granting the time extensions, and applicants would be directly notified of the additional time granted by the City. This provides a cost‐effective, simple, and targeted approach to granting time extensions for existing approvals that are most likely affected by the current economic downturn, consistent with initial Council direction. Consideration has also been given to the creation of a new application process and criteria to allow expedited review and approval of additional timeline extension requests made by applicants into the future. However, based on Council’s direction to focus this effort on existing approvals affected by the current economic situation, the option of creating a new application process for future timeline extension requests is not included in the proposed ordinance. This topic could be revisited in the future based on Council direction. PUBLIC NOTICE AND TESTIMONY Notice of the public hearing was sent to all neighborhood organizations, the City of Springfield, Lane County, and community groups and individuals who have requested notice. Notice was also published in the Register Guard as required for legislative actions. In addition to the required notification, staff provided further notice and opportunity for input to a wide array of interested parties including local land use professionals, frequent applicants and developers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Lane County Home Builders Association and Neighborhood Associations. A summary of the proposal and related materials is also posted on the City’s website at: www.eugene‐or.gov/timelineextensions. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received public testimony in the form of several letters and emails, all in general support of the proposed ordinance (see Attachment B). Staff has incorporated changes to the proposed ordinance based on the testimony, including clarifying language to address expiration periods for extended or phased approvals. The ordinance was also revised to grant extensions to all existing land use approvals that are effective but not yet expired, rather than a cut‐off date limiting the extensions only to approvals that were granted after January 1, 2007. This change is intended to capture the widest possible range of existing approvals that are similarly affected by the current economic conditions, to provide a more equitable approach for applicants with existing approvals in general, and to avoid creating disadvantage for a few applicants with large, multiple phase development projects that have undergone extensive master planning efforts and public process. The Planning Commission should also closely consider the proposed testimony from several applicants, which requests that the extensions be granted for a period of 3 years rather than two, primarily due to continuing economic difficulties with obtaining financing for development projects and still completing all the necessary permitting steps and construction before expiration. As with the determination of which applications should be granted time extensions, the length of the extension is also a policy choice for the commission to address. PC AGENDA, P2 Additional testimony received by staff in advance of the public hearing will also be included in the record and forwarded to the commission for consideration. APPLICABLE CRITERIA The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria from section 9.8065 of the Eugene Code (EC) in making recommendations to the Eugene City Council on the proposed ordinance, as listed below in bold italic. Preliminary findings addressing the required approval criteria have been prepared by staff and are provided as Exhibit A to the Ordinance, which is included as Attachment A. EC 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that following the public hearing and deliberation, the Planning Commission provide direction to staff concerning any possible revisions, and recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance. In the event an additional meeting is needed for action on this item, time is set aside at the Planning Commission meeting on October 5, 2009. Following Planning Commission’s deliberation and recommendation, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on October 19, 2009, and is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinance on November 9, 2009. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance and Findings B. Public Testimony FOR MORE INFORMATION For additional information, please contact Gabe Flock by telephone at 541‐682‐5697 or via email at gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us. PC AGENDA, P3  ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING EXTENSIONS FOR APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. To aid economic recovery in difficult economic conditions, the City Council wishes to be proactive and programmatic in granting a two-year extension to those unexpired development approvals that were granted by the city after a process that included a public notice and comment period. B. For land use approvals that include a phased development plan incorporated into an executed performance agreement, it is intended that the two-year extension be applied to the current phase of development and that the time periods for future phases be adjusted as needed to accommodate this Ordinance’s grant of a two-year extension for the current phase only. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The legislative findings attached as Exhibit A hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. The 12, 18 or 36-month expiration date described in EC 9.7230 or EC 9.7340 is hereby extended to add two years to the applicable 12, 18 or 36-month period for every existing land use approval that: A. Would otherwise be subject to a 12, 18 or 36-month expiration period pursuant to EC 9.7230 or EC 9.7340 (Type II or Type III land use applications); B, Became effective prior to the date this Ordinance is approved by the City Council; C. Did not expire prior to the date this Ordinance is approved by the City Council. Ordinance - Page 1 of 2 9/9/09 Draft PC AGENDA, P4 Further extensions for these land use approvals may be sought pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 3. In all executed performance agreements for land use approvals that meet the criteria in subsections 2.B. and 2.C., above, each reference to a specific year within in the Time Schedule section of said performance agreements (referencing a commencement or a completion year) is hereby changed to add two additional years. Section 4. The effective date of this Ordinance shall take effect pursuant to Section 32 of the Eugene Charter 2002, or on the date of its acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ____ day of _______________, 2009 ____ day of _________________, 2009 _____________________________ _____________________________ AIC City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - Page 2 of 2 9/9/09 Draft PC AGENDA, P5  EXHIBIT A Findings Land Use Application Timeline Extensions (CA 09‐5) Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the proposed ordinance comply with the following approval criteria (in bold and italics): (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 ‐ Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The proposed action only extends the effective date for land use applications that have already been approved. These approved land use applications have already undergone a codified process that involves citizens through public comment and/or hearings and appeal processes. The action does not amend the citizen involvement provisions included in these application processes. The process for adopting these amendments complies with Goal 1 because it is consistent with, and will not change the City’s existing and acknowledged citizen involvement provisions. The Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed ordinance was duly noticed to the City of Springfield, Lane County, and all neighborhood organizations, as well as community groups and individuals who have requested notice. In addition, notice of the public hearing was also published in the Register Guard. The City Council then held a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval, modification, or denial of the proposed ordinance. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the proposed ordinance is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 ‐ Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. The City’s acknowledged land use code specifies the procedures and criteria to be used for decisions and actions related to land use applications. The proposed ordinance does not change the planning process, policy framework or information relied on in making decisions and actions related to land use applications. The ordinance extends the time that these decisions are effective once the process has been completed and the policy framework and facts of each application have been determined and decided. Exhibit A: Findings ‐ 1 PC AGENDA, P6 The record also shows that there is an adequate factual base for the proposed ordinance. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for the proposed ordinance. Therefore, it is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 ‐ Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands. The proposed ordinance does not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply. Goal 4 ‐ Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands. The does not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 ‐ Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. OAR 660‐023‐0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. The proposed ordinance does not create or amend the City=s adopted inventory of Goal 5 resources, and does not amend any code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5. The proposed ordinance does not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and does not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 ‐ Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Exhibit A: Findings ‐ 2 PC AGENDA, P7 Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. The amendments to not affect the City=s ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6 does not apply. Goal 7 ‐ Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. The ordinance does not affect the City=s existing restrictions and approval criteria regarding development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. The proposed action only extends the effective date for land use applications that have already been approved. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not apply. Goal 8 ‐ Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non‐urban areas of the state. The proposed ordinance does not affect the City=s provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 8 does not apply. Goal 9 ‐ Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon=s citizens. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The Eugene Commercial Land Study (October 1992) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. The amendment does not affect the amount of land designated or zoned for commercial use and will have no direct impact on the existing supply of or any existing commercially designated land. Goal 9 further requires cities take into account methods and devices for overcoming certain regional conditions and deficiencies for implementing this goal, to include land use controls and ordinances. The proposed ordinance related to timeline extensions is specifically intended help applicants overcome economic hardships by extending the expiration period for already approved land use applications. Therefore, to the extent applicable, the amendment is consistent with Goal 9. Goal 10 ‐ Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The proposed ordinance does not impact the supply or availability of residential lands included in the City’s documented supply of “buildable land” that is available for Exhibit A: Findings ‐ 3 PC AGENDA, P8 residential development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study. Therefore, to the extent applicable, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Goal 11‐ Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The proposed ordinance does not affect the City=s provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply. Goal 12‐ Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660‐12). TransPlan provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level. The proposed ordinance will not significantly affect any transportation facility. The level of development currently permitted through existing code and zoning regulations will remain the same. No change in the functional classification of streets will result from the proposed ordinance. In addition, no changes are proposed to the standards that implement the functional classification system. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 13 ‐ Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The proposed ordinance does not affect any of the City’s energy conservation measures or programs. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13 does not apply. Goal 14 ‐ Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The proposed ordinance does not affect the City=s provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to urban uses. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. Goal 15 ‐ Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The proposed ordinance does not include any changes that affect the regulation of areas within the adopted Willamette River Greenway boundaries. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply. Goal 16 through 19 ‐ Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. The proposed ordinance does not include any changes related to coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the proposed ordinance will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. Exhibit A: Findings ‐ 4 PC AGENDA, P9 (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The proposed ordinance granting timeline extensions for approved land use applications does not include any change in adopted land use designations or policy, nor does it change any requirements in the City’s land use code concerning compliance with the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. There are no policies or other applicable provisions in the Metro Plan or adopted refinement plans that specifically serve as mandatory approval criteria in this instance or otherwise limit the expiration period for approved land use applications. Therefore, the proposed ordinance complies with the above criterion. (3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone. The proposed ordinance does not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Exhibit A: Findings ‐ 5 PC AGENDA, P10  Exhibit B PC AGENDA, P11 PC AGENDA, P12 PC AGENDA, P13 PC AGENDA, P14 PC AGENDA, P15 PC AGENDA, P16 PC AGENDA, P17 PC AGENDA, P18