Planning Commission

MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 5, 2010 6 p.m. PRESENT: Heidi Bierle, Chair; Jeff Mills, Vice Chair; Richard Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes, Jon Belcher, members; Steve Nystrom, Gabe Flock, Bill Eugene Planning Division; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Mike Sullivan, Community Development Division. Ms. Bierle called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. She announced the subject of the hearing, an appeal of the Hearings Official decision regarding the Goodpasture Island planned unit development (PUD). Commissioners introduced themselves. Ms. Bierle reviewed the order of the public hearing and noted the time allowed for testimony from the applicant and appellant (20 minutes) and time allowed for testimony from others (three minutes). She advised those offering testimony that failure to address the criteria with relevant specificity to allow the commission to respond may hurt their ability to appeal respond in the future. Mr. Duncan indicated his firm appraised the property in question five or six years ago, but he did not believe that created a conflict. Ms. Bierle said that a participant at her table at the Envision Eugene public forum the previous evening used the proposed development as an example, but did not speak to the appeal. She called for challenges to the commissioners’ impartiality. There were none. Steve Ochs, Associate Planner, provided the staff report. Mr. Ochs entered three letters of testimony received that evening into the record: 1) a letter from Gordon and Irene Crider; 2) a letter from Bonita Merton; and 3) a letter from Wanda and Tom Hays. Continued staff report. Mr. Ochs invited questions. There were none. Ms. Bierle opened the public hearing and called for testimony from those in favor of the application. Michael Robinson raised two preliminary issues, noting the submission of a letter regarding the extension of the application deadline. He suggested that the testimony submitted by the appellant contained new evidence, and said it should be struck from the record. He indicated a number of consultants were present to address various elements of the project, and invited commission questions for those consultants. He agreed with the Hearings Official and staff in regard to the application. He said the Hearings Official and staff demonstrated the criteria were satisfied. He said the application accepted responsibility to mitigate its impact, which was why it was adding new lanes on the bridge. He divided his presentation into two parts, one concerned with the zone change and one concerned with other aspects of the application. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 1 Speaking to the R-3 zoning, MR said the zoning was consistent with the Metro Plan designation for the property and the rezoning satisfied the applicable criteria by demonstrating compliance with the Metro Plan and thorough addressing all the relevant plan policies. The Hearings Official and staff concurred. The applicant also showed the zone was consistent with the Willakenzie area refinement plan, and did so by addressing all policies. One policy called for high-density residential zoning on the site and another policy called for its rezoning. The property must also be served by urban facilities, all of which were in place. For the most part they were directed at the City or were aspirational in nature and not required. The Hearings Official explained how they were met, satisfied, or were not applicable, and he asked the commission to examine those policies, his letter, and the Hearings Official decision. Mr. Robinson discussed the TPR as it applied to the zone change, explaining it required the applicant to determine if the proposal would have a significant effect; one was found, so the TRP then required the developer to show the impacts could be mitigated. That was done, and conditional approval 1 contained several conditions, including the traffic impact. The traffic impact prepared by JRH went through the two- step analysis required by the administrative rule. Mr. Robinson said the appellants argued that a trip cap was allowed, and it was. A mitigation condition could include any measure as a condition of approval, but should not adversely affect intersection operations. To that end, the developer proposed a trip cap and no more traffic could be generated than that envisioned under a worst case scenario. It was a well-known way of addressing such impacts, and ODOT had written a letter, contained in the packet, stating a trip cap satisfied the TPR. The appellants also stated the Hearings Official erred in requiring additional bridge lanes by suggesting it was a major rather than minor improvement. The TPR defined minor improvement at 660.12.15 as the addition of turn lanes, and the record showed the applicant was adding turn lanes, not through lanes. Willamette Oaks also argued that TransPlan must be amended, but the rule was clear the improvement did not have to be in TransPlan. Willamette Oaks also argued the application changed the functional classification of Alexander Loop, but the TPR was clear that unless you make an application to change the designation of the street, you do not change the functional classification. The arterial and collector street plan stipulated that a number of things contribute to a street classification, none of which predominated over the other. The Willakenzie Area Plan described classifications but employed no mandatory language. The Hearings Official concluded that the language supported the conclusion that the functional classification of Alexander Loopwas not changed. In addition, LUBA looked at similar facts in past cases and concluded that having more trips did not change the functional classification. Leaving the TPR, Mr. Robinson returned to the subject of the zone change. It was clear that the City may condition the zone change as done here. Eugene Code and State law both provided for it. In the LUBA appeal of the last decision, LUBA rejected the argument and no appeal was filed, so conditions could be conditioned as was done in this case. The appellant argued the applicant needed a goal exception for the Greenway—not the case. As long as not within the setback, do not need a goal exception. Mr. Robinson would have preferred to have avoided zone change but it was clear that the Metro plan required it. Mr. Robinson submitted application before effective date of code amendment that a neighborhood meeting was required. Satisfied code for TIA, pages 5-7 of staff report addressed. Pages 7-8 describe how to satisfy refinement plan. Speaking to screening, Hearings Official went through issue and explained why screening was adequate and code was satisfied. Speaking to issue of whether providing safe and adequate transportation system, TIA looked at things that the PUD was also concerned about and staff careful in its evaluation and had evidence that satisfied them that adequate public transportation system would exist. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 2 Note many appeal errors and confess hard to understand how Hearings Official could make so many mistakes. Look at the evidence. Staff did, ODOT did, Lane County did, Hearings Official did. All entities found approval criteria were met. Record supports application. Please deny appeal. Donald Sowieja, Meyer Group Architects, 700 SW Taylor Street, Portland, Oregon, 97205; the appli- cant’s representative, indicated consultants wanted to be in the record to ensure they could answer questions. Brian Genovese, Traffic Engineer for JRH 4765 Village Plaza Loop, Eugene, Oregon; was present to answer questions. Greg Vik, North Delta Mixed Use development north of the site, stated he supported the development because of the quality of design and aesthetic character of the project, the architects were well-known for high quality design, and the development had gone through an extensive design review process and was beautiful. The project was needed to meet demand for senior housing. Addressed functional need of residents as well as surrounding. All permits adhered to. The project team spent substantial time and effort and a substantial investment was being made in Eugene by the owner. He said the City and its residents had come down on the side of higher density as opposed to sprawl, and the Waterford Grand development reflected that desire. To delay for delays sake should not be given precedent. The appeal is full of non-specific content and was incomplete. This was the right development for the right site at the right time, given the economy. Mr. Vik reviewed a letter from George Rogers, General Manager of Valley River Inn, in support of the project for its aesthetic qualities and for the economic impact it would have. Mike Peebles, OTAC, 17355 Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, was present to answer questions. Pat Knox, 85074 Ridgetop, Eugene; spoke of the difficulty he had in finding a home for his mother and said he did not want to be in a similar situation for his father in law. He wanted him to have a place to stay, and wanted to have a place for him to stay when his own time came to enter assisted living. He believed more competition would increase the quality of care available. Buzz Blum, Eugene Sign and Awning, 8997 Prairie Road, was present to answer questions. Zach Mittge, Willamette Oaks, noted his written submission, which demonstrated the Hearings Official should be reversed on a number of issues. He requested a copy of the most recent submission from JRH Engineering. The appellant submitted a timely notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee. The applicant complained at the size of the appeal fee, which was lower than it was intended to be. The applicant remitted additional balance once informed of situation. Rebuttal under ORS citation here, this provision of law only applies to initial evidentiary hearing, which took place before the Hearings Official. The applicant was provided with extended rebuttal in that instance and was not entitled to rebuttal in this case. There is no problem allowing for a rebuttal confined to the appeal issue related to appeal fee. Mr. Mittge reviewed the elements of his submittal related to the trip cap. He discussed the TPR and the associated two-step process. The zone change did not conform to step 1 because it did not address all significant impacts, did not address increased volume and that Beltline and numerous other locations would be impacted by the R-3 zone. The Hearings Official should be reversed. Just because proposing a trip cap does not get to altering functional classification of Alexander Loop. Applying Eugene Arterial and Collector matrix staff demonstrated proposed zone change would alter function to collector. Hearings MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 3 Official rejected that analysis but then stated he did not understand how one aspect of the matrix worked. Proposed street would still be a collector even if that not considered. Turn lane decision by Hearings Official and terms inaccurate. Road widening on a bridge a major improvement that must be included in TransPlan. It does not comply with trip cap. Speaking to the PUD issues, he maintained that the appeal fee did not reflect the average cost of an appeal and was not tied to the costs of staff time, copying, etc. He noted that the applicant complained that the issue was not raised but could not be raised in the absence of an appeal. It was raised as soon as possible. He maintained that the applicant was doing so again by making people available for the commission to question in violation of ORS. Ms. Warnes asked Mr. Mittge to clarify his point about the historic meanders. Mr. Mittge said his analysis indicates historic river channels ran across the site, and there was a remnant channel and something else somewhere else. Charlie Cole, submitted and reviewed his written testimony. Spoke to incompatibility of zoning with surrounding uses, need for preservation of environment around use, disappointment about staff recommen- dation related to pedestrian movement and nature of pedestrians. Goodpasture Island Road was dangerous and speed limit signs and vegetation removal not sufficient. No safe crossings between Valley River Drive and Kingsley. Consider light triggered by pedestrians but dismissed based on usage data. His comments were endorsed by Jack Terry former past president of Willamette Oaks Residents Association. Ken Tollenaar, 1522 Russet Drive, represented the Cal Young Neighborhood Association. He noted the distribution of his written testimony, and summarized its points. Question why not R-2 rather than R-3, which would accommodate developer’s needs. Hearings Official erred in finding R-3 with trip cap satisfied TPR. He cited Mason versus Corvallis, where it was held a TIA must be based on the uses allowed by the new zone, not the uses proposed by the developer. Therefore, the City must consider the worst case scenario for the uses allowed, which was roughly double what an R-3 with trip cap would provide. He also cited Willamette Oaks versus City of Eugene, which called for a TIA before the approval of a zone change. The Hearings Official seems to have provided a contrary ruling. He urged the PC to require a TIA based on 1,182 dwelling units rather than the number proposed by the developer, which would allow 754 trips daily. Mr. Tollenaar also objected to the Hearings Official decision related to intensification of the use over and above the 583 units presently proposed using a Type II procedure and said it should be a Type III procedure that allowed for a public hearing because of the high level of public interest involved. He recalled he had called attention to the lack of a neighborhood park in the area and maintained the City had funding to do so with the passage of the 2008 bond issue, and indicated discussion of one was occurring somewhere near the development. He had earlier proposed that the approval be conditioned on delay of Parcel 5 development to give the City an opportunity to negotiate with the property owner to purchase sufficient land to buy a park. The Hearings Official erred in assuming the City had to find the property, had adequate access already to neighborhood parks because it was designated for high density. Assume that park is there. Speaking to Hearings Official condition added in response to pedestrian hazard at Alexander Loop and Goodpasture, suggests removing vegetation that will grow back and what you need is a traffic signal instead. A mitigation measure was originally proposed by developer but does not meet technical warrant requirements for installation of a traffic sign, assert that not used because it is so hazardous. Ms. Warnes clarified movement of pedestrians with Mr. Tollenaar. Took him eight seconds to reach pedestrian island and eight seconds to get to other side. There’s a curve there and a pedestrian has a difficult time seeing around that curve. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 4 Ms. Bierle called for a staff response to testimony. Mr. Ochs addressed the issue of new evidence, and indicated staff would assist in identifying where new evidence appeared to have been submitted. Regarding appeal issue 1 related to appeal fee, and legal counsel was investigating whether it could be raised at this stage of the process. In regard to the payment of the fee, legal counsel said no problem in realizing error and billing for more money later. Speaking to question regarding the need for the zone change, Mr. Ochs said the zone change was required because the designation of the underlying property was for high-density. Because R-2 allowed the low 20 units per acre does not implement the zone because it could allow for less than the minimum of the high density requirement. Mr. Flock said that staff anticipated discussion of the applicant’s request for a time extension and was supportive of the request given the volume of information submitted. Ms. Bierle invited applicant rebuttal. Mr. Robinson asked for a brief recess. After consulting with the commission, Ms. Bierle concurred. Mr. Zittge maintained that the proceeding, on the record, qualifies as new evidence, and he objected to its introduction. Mr. Robinson maintained that the evidence was already in the record and suggested it made more sense to hear from the geotechnical expert than him. Mr. Robinson noted that it turned the process inside out if people could not address evidence already in the record. Mr. Flock indicated staff believed it was appropriate to hear from the consultants and staff would attempt to identify any new evidence. Michael Rembolt, engineering consultant, indicated he had reviewed Dr. Schleider’s submission and believed he had missed much of the report. They had done 60 test pts, borings, and probes and agree with characterization of the site and documented in preliminary report. They had done extensive study with aerial photography. Also did groundwater study, and provided recommendation for further study. Did many borings and supplemented those with additional probes using continuous samplers. Also did infiltration tests. Borings identified areas identified by D.S in his report. One of two areas with decayed organics and those are discussed. Site will require special foundations and recommending deep founda- tions to get to the non-liquefiable gravel or remove and replace the loose sands and organic materials with sand and gravel, which would address the problems. Brian Genovese, JRH Transportation Engineering, rebutted comments about the traffic analysis with the assistance of materials in the record. He said he had done a worst case R-2 and worst case R-3 analysis (Figure 2 in the June 17 TIA) and noted the location of intersections. There was input from Lane County, city of Eugene, and ODOT on facilities they wanted to see analyzed. Mr. Genoves pointed out locations on the map. Question of whether bridge facility new or a turn lane as proposed in our analysis. Attach- ment 4-A and 4-B submitted on February 3. Representation of the point being made about widening of existing turn lane versus new lane. It is still a road widening to accommodate a turn lane, hence why it is a minor transportation improvement and not required to be in the TSP. Mr. Genovese refers to Exhibit 1 in November 16 proposal where suggested to address mobility conditions at interchange. Had a performance issue for the number of vehicles that could make it through the intersection. Speaking to the pedestrian crossing, Mr. Genovese agreed with some of the comments that supported something being done at the pedestrian crossing. When the numbers are run its hard to justify from traffic engineering standpoint; however, some of the arguments made is ‘if you build it they will come’, and I MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 5 agree, and applicant willing to implement measures to improve safety for elderly pedestrians. Mr. Hledik requested clarification about the Hearings Official decision page 23 (143 of packet), which defines minor transportation improvement, and speaks to minor transportation improvement such as but not limited to turn lanes. Same page same definition, do not include . . . “addition of travel lanes.” Page 24 of Hearings Official decision describes mitigation measures -- #2 talks about Goodpasture Island Road Bridge and suggests widening road to accommodate dual turn lanes by constructing second bridge structure or b) widening Goodpasture Island Road east of the existing bridge to provide four travel lanes that would accommodate two turn lanes and two through lanes in each direction. If by definition travel lanes not minor improvements, there are only two travel lanes there now. You’re suggesting not four but two travel, two turn lanes. If a turn lane is a travel lane, can see difficulty understanding difference. However, in first section clearly describes minor transportation improvement as a turn lane. If that were the case, the logic you suggest would negate itself in that you could not have any lane whatsoever to satisfy a minor transportation improvement. Mr. Hledik wants to discuss where travel lane language came from. Mr. Duncan – Asked Mr. Genovese the purpose of the widening. Was it because of limited bridge space? In order to widen the road and accommodate the turn lanes required, proposing a new parallel bridge that could be attached to the existing bridge. Similar to Valley River bridge—placed a new structure next to existing structure and moved the lanes over. Modifications to the existing bridge were such that we proposed to change the use of the bridge to two lanes for east bound travel, which would require striping changes. The only other modification would be to the existing bridge rail on north side and discussion by staff about removing bridge rail to accommodate wider travel lanes and safer bicycle lanes. Ms. Bierle - Mr. Genovese had submitted analysis in mitigation project that included a signal at Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road. The applicant considered a typical traffic signal as well as a pedestrian-accentuated signal to stop vehicular traffic. Both options were examined, and neither justified the installation of a traffic control device. Government agencies resisted installing signals where the need was marginal because if rarely used, they could be ignored. He suggested that people were not using the intersection in question because they found it unsafe. Ms. Bierle determined from Mr. Genovese that the proposed use was accounted for in the TIA from both a pedestrian and vehicle standpoint. Ms. Bierle asked where she could find that analysis. Mr. Genovese referred to the November 16 letter from JRH Transportation Engineering. Mr. Mills determined that Mr. Genovese had done a worst case analysis for the R-2 zoning and the R-3 zoning. JRH had looked at the potential impact from a trip generation standpoint from an R-3 scenario. He had looked at the uses allowed in both zones. Mr. Mills asked what improvement was involved with the bridge. Mr. Genovese said the applicant proposed to add turn lanes on the north bound on-ramp for . . . to widen a road to add turn lanes, adding left turn lanes was difficult to do without widening the road. The applicant did not propose to add travel lanes, but was adding turn lanes to address the mobility issues identified with the development. Donald Sowieja, said he had provided information that detailed investigation of Parcel 4, the rest of the site came with that open record period, which was referred to as the information not available for the opponents geotechnical review. Mr. Sowiega spoke to the concept that standards would be modified, they are allowed to be modified, so accurate comments, did propose certain deviations from the standards but as allowed by EC. The applicant also requested adjustment review. So characterization request to waive standards not accurate. We proposed a traffic signal for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, but rejected; Hearings Official ruled prior to development of Parcel 5, conditions would be reevaluated and the signal provided if necessary. The applicant would like to provide a park. Speaking to issue of a neighborhood park, he said the Parks Division had contacted the applicant about a park site. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 6 Michael Robinson concluded the applicant’s rebuttal testimony by addressing RH comment regarding Condition 2 and recommended consultation with legal counsel. The applicant’s proposal was consistent with the TPR but that should be called out. Mr. Robinson said the applicant would have preferred not to seek a zone change, but staff’s position was that the zone change was necessary and, for whatever reason, the property was designated HDR. Doesn’t matter what else is around. Hearings Official agreed that if R-2 zone had minimum density less than map, and must go to the next zone. Code and plan required it. Speaking to the trip cap, suggested not as confusing as people made it sound; only considered worst case scenario and trip generation. Know of obligation not to make the situation worse, so translate the trips to development, and Hearings Official limited to those. They had addressed TPR in a commonly accepted way of dealing with the TPR. The TPR is extremely complex, and have to find a way to make it work. Intended to ensure that development does not unfairly burden already paid for infrastructure. He reviewed (2) of TPR. Not that confusing. If want to change, go back to a Type II process; agree should be a Type III but need a public process to change. Trip cap legitimate mitigation measure and widely used in the State of Oregon. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Duncan’s use of the bridge would affect his decision making. Mr. Duncan assured him it would not. Mr. Hledik asked about the worst case scenario based on current R-2 zoning. Mr. Robinson explained that the worst case for the existing zone was compared to the worst case with the proposed zone. Faulted for using later horizon date, which was 21 years out. Mr. Robinson noted the applicant had proposed a traffic signal at Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road and indicated the applicant was willing to install the signal at the commission’s behest. Speaking to the court of appeals case cited by KT, not a trip case, and called for the two-step analysis he previously mentioned. The court of appeals indicated both steps of the analysis must be done, and we have done that. Mr. Robinson rule distinguishes—please correct Hearings Official condition. Mr. Robinson reviewed a proposed schedule for the submission of rebuttal and opponent’s testimony. Mr. Mittge objected to the schedule and asked that the record be held open for argument through May 19 for both parties. The commission discussed Mr. Robinson’s request and Mr. Mittge’s objections. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to accept the applicant’s schedule. The motion passed, 6:1, Ms. Warnes voting no. Ms. Bierle closed the public hearing and announced the record would remain open until May 12 for the appellant’s response, and until May 19 for the applicant’s rebuttal. Mr. Hledik referred to appeal issue 13 and the requirement for a geotechnical analysis update. He asked if that was standard City practice or if this set a precedent. Mr. Ochs noted that the wording represented slightly different language than what was typical, but achieved the same thing. Mr. Hledik noted that it is not unusual to delay that information until other processes. Mr. Ochs noted that was correct. Mr. Hledik page 14 appeal issue 14 (a) discussed applicant assignment to wrong standard—read through materials and received impression volume of traffic not a criteria to change classification of street, or not MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 7 necessarily the overriding criteria. Mr. Ochs clarified that volume was one of several criteria and agreed to provide the other criteria. Mr. Hledik indicted interest in more discussion about mitigation measure 2 regarding the turn lane issue had had raised repeatedly. Mr. Duncan noted discussion about the requirement for a neighborhood meeting and asked if that was a requirement when the application was filed. Mr. Flock said he could confirm the dates mentioned. Mr. Duncan discussed proposed signals on Goodpasture Island Road. If the commission decides to make that a condition of approval, what would be the mechanism for the City to require it if the PW determines not appropriate. Mr. Flock noted staff would consult with PW and legal counsel. Mr. Mills wanted to be clear as to why the signal was rejected and asked if the standards allowed for variability based on the population using the signal, or was there a signal standard applied and then we use judgment. Mr. Ochs said he would provide information about that. Mr. Mills wanted more information about how the decision was reached. Ms. Warnes requested information about alternatives to signals. Mr. Belcher wanted to hear from PW about undefined demand, or the ‘if you build it they will come’ approach mentioned by Mr. Genovese. Mr. Randall clarified the nature of the trip cap with Mr. Ochs. Ms. Bierle clarified reference to degradation of services. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2010 Page 8