Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 24, 2010 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Lisa Gardner, Gabe Flock, Steve Ochs, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. WALNUT STATION DELIBERATION CONTINUED Staff: Lydia McKinney, 541-682-5485 III. GOODPASTURE ISLAND PUD Staff: Steve Ochs, 541-682-5453 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 1  Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 24, 2010 11:00 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Lisa Gardner, Gabe Flock, Steve Ochs, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, Kathryn Brotherton, City Attorney. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair. Ms. Beierle convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:04 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. WALNUT STATION DELIBERATION CONTINUED Ms. McKinney provided the staff report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC) on April 20, 2010. The purpose of today’s meeting was to form a recommendation on the proposed amendments to forward to the City Council. Staff had also prepared a memorandum, Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) in the agenda packet, to respond to issues raised in public testimony and questions from the Planning Commission. Staff had been in contact with several stakeholders and individuals since the public hearing to address outstanding issues. Many of the issues raised have been addressed in the plan documents to date. In some cases, additional policy recommendations or form based code changes were recommended, as detailed in the staff memorandum. The Draft Ordinance and attachments have been revised to reflect staff recommended changes, and were included as Attachment B to the AIS. Ms. McKinney reviewed a list of the proposed motions iterated in the AIS for consideration by commissioners. Staff recorded modifications to the proposed language offered by commissioners. Mr. Belcher expressed concern about the multiway boulevard, noting Franklin Boulevard had many drive-by tenants. If the multiway boulevard required pre-thinking on the part of drivers, it could discourage business. He suggested requiring advance road signing to notify drivers when they should turn to access businesses. Mr. Duncan asked if there was a way to study tree spacing in the median, speculating that the current spacing of 30 feet between trees had some basis, but it may not be the best number. In response to a question from Ms. McKinney, Mr. Inerfeld explained the tree spacing would be determined by the type of trees selected. He added not planting trees in the median would defeat the multiway boulevard concept. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Duncan opined the downtown area would loose out if the Riverfront Research Park was built out, emphasizing the importance of having a project that was developable. He suggested removing items from the project that would incur additional costs and discourage business, such as some traffic mitigation measures. He suggested payment of the traffic studies by the City would provide incentives for the businesses. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. McKinney said windows along alleys were specific to Walnut Station. She added form based code and the current code had removed many barriers to development. The code placed more emphasis on design standards and eliminated multi-family standards. Developers who wished to deviate from the code could do so through the alternate path process. Mr. Randall suggested if the alleys were treated as streets, they should be called streets. Ms. McKinney said there was not much alley length in Walnut Station, and they alleys did not meet the street standards. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. McKinney explained the alternate path process was a Type II application process whereby a development proposal needed to meet or exceed the form based code. In response to a question from Ms. Warnes, Ms. McKinney said the minimum alley right-of-way (r-o-w) was 20 feet. Mr. Hledik stated the American Institute of Architects (AIA) conducted a review of the code and determined the alternate path provided an adequate escape route. Mr. Duncan asserted developments that participated at the beginning of the process had to pay for studies and mitigation measures, while those projects that came later did not have to pay for any of that work. Mr. Hledik asked if developers were required to pay proportionally for studies and mitigation measures. Ms. Jerome stated proportional payment was not typically seen in this area, although that method was used in other jurisdictions. Generally, the first project was required to pay all of the costs. It was not common for experienced developers to seek repayment from subsequent developers in our jurisdiction. Ms. McKinney said the City paid for the first phase of a traffic calming study for the Fairmount neighborhood and the University of Oregon (UO) would pay for the second phase of the study. Mr. Inerfeld said it would be important to perform before and after counts to determine whether the traffic calming was working. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. McKinney explained that the criterion in Eugene Code (EC) 9.8680 would be triggered only if a transportation impact analysis (TIA) was required. This originated with the Fairmount special area plan and had been pulled from the plan to be consistent. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. McKinney said the alley window requirement could be eliminated if the applicant demonstrated it was not needed. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Duncan was concerned there was no language in the code that required it be revisited in the future. Without that requirement, it may never be reviewed or reviewed too late to be useful. Mr. Hledik suggested including language that would require a review after completion of a certain size project to review lessons learned and make necessary adjustments to the code. Mr. Duncan added if projects were not happening, the commission should review the process to determine why development was not occurring. Ms. McKinney suggested requiring a review after three years or 50,000 square feet of development had occurred. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve the proposed Eugene Code changes as provided in the AIS and attachments, with specific changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Warnes was concerned that bicycle parking was not adequate. Ms. Beierle expressed concern about creating a more pedestrian friendly environment. She supported the suggestion of moving design review from the Hearings Official to the Planning Commission. Mr. Randall thought the process had been well vetted and the form based code was a better way to go. Mr. Duncan was generally supportive. He thought the Hearings Official was a better option for design review. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. GOODPASTURE ISLAND PUD Mr. Ochs stated the Planning Commission’s review role of the Hearings Official’s decision was limited to information already in the record to determine if s/he had erred. Ms. Jerome explained the commission’s review role was similar to that of an appellate judge and intended to determine what the Hearings Official did wrong. The Eugene Code (EC) limited the commission to reviewing those issues raised during the Hearings Official process. Issues raised through the appeal process must present sufficient specificity and limited to what was in the record. Ms. Jerome said one issue raised was the order of speaking at the Hearings Official’s hearing. This issue was not clearly explained based on EC. The proponent on this project was the developer, who had offered testimony that was consistent with state law. A recent case before LUBA indicated that any word out of an expert’s mouth during the appeals process was considered “new evidence”, which was in conflict with years of case law. If a consultant gave new evidence, it should be rejected. Ms. Jerome asserted the appellant argued that the PUD fees were too high. She said regardless of whether or not this was true, the Planning Commission’s opinion was irrelevant and there was nothing in the code that authorized the Planning Commission to address this issue. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Flock said some of the arguments were sufficiently related that the Eugene Code could be quoted. The Planning Commission reviewed the assignments of error. Ms. Jerome suggested that the Planning Commission vote on each issue as it was discussed. Assignment of Error 1: Fee Disproportionate—The appellant said not all evidence submitted was considered by the Hearings Official. Mr. Ochs noted only two items were not considered by the Hearings Official. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved that the Planning Commission reject two items from the record. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duncan noted the draft findings did not include all of the findings from the public hearing. He opined all of the findings should have been made available without comments. Mr. Belcher stated all appeal issues raised should have been included even if they had been denied. Ms. Jerome said the jurisdictional issue should be determined by a motion. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning Commission take official notice of evidence regarding appeal fee underpayment. The motion passed unanimously. Assignment of Error 2: Geotechnical Report—There was consensus that the “no harm, no foul” approach used was acceptable. Mr. Duncan said the information provided was either not new evidence or worthless. Ms. Jerome said since the Hearings Official did not rely on the new evidence, the process would be cleaner if the Planning Commission rejected the argument. A motion was not needed on this assignment of error. Assignment of Error 5: Required Neighborhood Meeting—There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. Mr. Duncan, referring to his e-mail to staff related to the May 5, 2010 agenda material, suggested the May 5 and May 24, 2010 documentation condensed into one document. Assignment of Error 11: Alexander Loop—Pedestrian Crossing—There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. Mr. Ochs had talked with the City of Eugene Traffic Engineer regarding what could be done to modify the Hearings Official’s condition requiring a Type II Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project. It was noted a pedestrian/beacon system did not stop the cars. Mr. Belcher thought there would be little or no pedestrians crossing such a busy street at the subject location. Mr. Flock said there was no process in place to deal with this issue. Mr. Hledik stated the Hearings Official did not err. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Belcher asked what bearing the petition signed by 300 neighbors would have on the decision. Mr. Flock responded a Type II process does allow for public input. Ms. Beierle stated the Hearings Official did not address the population and demographics of the retirement community when evaluating the TIA. Ms. Warnes echoed Mr. Belcher’s concerns and agreed people would not cross at a location if it was too dangerous. Ms. Jerome asked what the assignment of error was. Mr. Duncan said if there was an error made by the Hearings Official, the Planning Commission should make the latest improvement to the condition. Assignment of Error 13: Geotechnical Results in Modified Condition— There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. Mr. Ochs explained more specificity could be raised during the PUD final Type II process. There would be room for some discretion during the PUD final Type II process and it made sense to have public input during this process. No contractor work would be allowed until the final PUD appeal process was completed. 1.—TPR Analysis—Comparison of R-2/R-3 zoning—There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. 1.b—Horizon Year-- Ms. Brotherton stated that while relying on 2031 as the horizon year was not technically correct, relying on this year was conservative and allowed for proper evaluation of traffic. There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. 1.c and 1.d—Alexander Loop—There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. 1.e and 1.f—Trip Cap-- There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. There should be the ability to have public comment if the trip cap was revisited. Mr. Hledik and Mr. Belcher requested a Planning Commission work session on trip caps. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Jerome said the City believed trip caps were legal. 1.g and 1.h—Minor Transportation Improvement—There was consensus to deny this appeal issue. There was consensus to modify conditions for the following assignments of error: Assignment of Error 11: Alexander Loop—Pedestrian Crossing—based upon potential for further degradation. Assignment of Error 2: Geotechnical Report—based upon conditional zone change. Assignment of Error 5: Required Neighborhood Meeting—reviewed when the Willamette MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 6  River Greenway riparian permit came in. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to affirm the Hearings Official’s decision on additional findings and modified conditions. Mr. Duncan offered a friendly amendment directing staff to bring the final order to the Planning Commission on June 14, 2010. Mr. Hledik accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 5:1, with Commissioner Warnes voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher asked staff to provide information on how other jurisdictions conducted appeal hearings. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. (Recorded by Kathryn Brotherton, transcribed from handwritten notes by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 24, 2010 Page 7