Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 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 Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. BENSON, AMBER (Z 13-2) APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION – CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Staff: Zach Galloway, 541-682-5485 1:15 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice- Chair); Jeffery Mills; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 23, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Zach Galloway, AICP, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division Subject: Continued Deliberations on the Appeal of Hearings Official Decision – Benson Zone Change (Z 13-2) Additional Info: Official records found on the Planning + Development Department website ACTION REQUESTED Continue deliberations on the appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official’s decision to approve a Zone Change for the Benson property (Z 13-2) located at 955 Coburg Road and to take action to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official’s decision. PLANNING COMMISSION’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 ACTION The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7:0) to affirm the Hearings Official’s decision with respect to sub-assignment of error 1.A, confirming that he did not err in his determination that the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential in the Metro Plan. In effect, this resolves the question of compliance with the zone change approval criterion at EC 9.8865(1), regarding the applicable plan designation in the Metro Plan. Given the interrelationship of many of the appeal items, staff believes your decision on subassignment of error 1.A also addresses several other appeal statements. As stated in EC 9.8865(2), “[i]n the event of inconsistencies between these [refinement] plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls.” Therefore, with the action to affirm the Hearings Official’s finding that the subject site is MDR, the Commission has effectively resolved sub-assignment of error 2.A. That affirmation also resolves all issues listed under assignment of error 3, to the extent those appeal issues rely on the opponents’ fundamental assertion that the subject property is designated Low- Density Residential. REMAINING SUBASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Additional deliberations and decisions on the remaining sub-assignments of error were continued to the Commission’s September 23rd meeting. Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) The Planning Commission must determine if the Hearings Official erred in his decision to not provide further findings in regard to the WAP?  If the Commission finds the Hearings Official erred, then the Commission has the discretion to adopt supplemental findings regarding the WAP. 1 Compatibility and Site Review Overlay (/SR) Metro Plan Policies A.13 and A.23 The Hearings Official evaluated the cited policies and considered their effect on the zone change request. The decision explains his determination that these policies are planning directives rather than mandatory approval criteria. As discussed on page 17 of the decision, the applicant noted that the Metro Plan policies A.13 and A.23 were not mandatory, the EC 9.5500 Multi-Family standards were sufficient standards to fulfill the policy, and there was legal precedence from a prior zone change application that did not apply the Site Review Overlay. In fact, Metro Plan Policy A.23 is a directive to the City to create regulations, and the City has fulfilled that obligation by adopting the multi-family standards in EC 9.5500. While an individual may view those standards insufficient to maintain compatibility, the quasi-judicial process is not the proper venue to address a prior legislative decision. With regard to Site Review, the Hearings Official concluded that there was insufficient policy basis to require the overlay, and does not further address the appellant’s assertion that even more specific conditions of approval or limitations on a future site plan are necessary to ensure these policies are met. He notes: “Certainly if those policies were intended to require that zone change approvals be subject to site plan review, then the language would so state.” Willakenzie Area Plan, Residential Policy 8 While the Hearings Official concluded that the Metro Plan policies are aspirational and not considered mandatory criteria, the Willakenzie Area Plan offered the clearest direction, as asserted in the staff report, for application of the Site Review Overlay. The Planning staff report cited Willakenzie Area Plan Residential Policy 8 as possible support for the site review overlay. The supporting Proposed Action 8.1 calls for the City to apply the Site Review overlay (/SR) to all parcels zoned for higher density residential that abut low density residential. However, this statement may be limited in its ability to support the site review overlay. Unlike policies, proposed actions are not adopted by the City Council and are considered advisory means to implement a policy. This further underscores the Hearings Official’s determination that he lacked sufficient policy basis to apply the Site Review overlay, and thus, he concurred with the applicant’s position that EC 9.5500 addressed the compatibility issue. Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider the following questions in their deliberation:  Did the Hearings Official err in not considering WAP Residential Policy 8, and associated Proposed Action 8.1, as justification to apply the /SR Overlay?  Does the Commission think WAP Residential Policy 8 and Proposed Action 8.1 provide sufficient policy direction to apply the /SR Overlay?  How does the Commission reconcile past legal precedence that does not support application of the /SR Overlay in the Willakenzie area?  See City Attorney Memo, dated September 19, 2013, regarding potential risks associated with the application of Site Review Overlay. Regardless of how the Commission dispenses with the question of the Site Review Overlay, the resolution will address Sub-assignments of Error 1.B, 1.C, 2.B, and 2.C. 2 Harlow Subarea Policy 4 and Other WAP Policies In reaching a final decision on the zone change request, the Hearings Official relied on the Metro Plan designation and chose not to go beyond that. At the conclusion of the September 16th deliberations, Commissioners specifically requested a discussion of Harlow Subarea Policy 4 and other WAP policies contained in subassignment of errors 2.B through 2.E. Harlow Subarea Policy 4 The Hearings Official was hesitant to adopt any findings addressing the applicability or compliance with Harlow Subarea Policy 4. Finding that the Metro Plan controlled, he chose to rely on what he believed was the clear legal authority in the matter. The Commission’s September 16th action indirectly addressed Harlow Subarea Policy 4. Also, it is important to recall that this policy was a part of the WAP when the City Council made a clear and intentional decision, through adoption of Ordinance No. 19856, to not redesignate the subject parcel from MDR to LDR. Staff suggests the Planning Commission address the following questions:  Did the Hearings Official err in not providing findings on Harlow Subarea Policy 4?  Or, does the Commission prefer to adopt supplemental findings that offer clear deference to the 1992 City Council’s legislative action? Additional WAP Policies If the Commission wishes to adopt supplemental findings regarding the other policies cited in the Appeal Statement, there are similar considerations at play.  Did the Hearings Official err in not providing findings regarding WAP Residential Policy 1 and Land Use Policies 3 and 6?  Do these policies provide sufficient direction to affect the plan designation or zone?  Do these policies provide additional and sufficient justification for application of /SR Overlay?  Again, does the Commission desire supplemental findings that offer clear deference to the 1992 City Council’s legislative action? The resolution of the issues above will address Sub-assignments of Error 2.B, 2.C, 2.D, and 2.E. CONCLUSION Following the commission’s resolution of the remaining issues above, staff recommends the Planning Commission provide specific direction to staff regarding the preparation of a final order and any specific supplemental findings. FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact Zach Galloway, AICP, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682-5485, or by e- mail at zach.a.galloway@ci.eugene.or.us. 3