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, OCTOBER 7, 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. APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION – LAUREL RIDGE ZONE CHANGE,PUD, TIA AND STANDARDS REVIEW – DELIBERATIONS Staff: Steve Ochs, 541-682-5453 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 October 7, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Steve Ochs, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division Subject: Appeal of Hearings Official Decision: LaurelRidge PUD (PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5 and Z 12-2) ACTION REQUESTED This is the first deliberations following the October 1, 2013 public hearing of the LaurelRidge PUD (PDT 12-1) appeal. The Planning Commission’s (PC) task is to address the Appeal Issues outlined below. The PC’s decision – to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official’s (HO) decision – is due by October 22, 2013, in order to meet the 120 statutory deadline. BRIEFING STATEMENT The applications subject to this appeal are a Zone Change from AG Agriculture to R-1 Low density residential and a Tentative Planned Unit Development, Zone Change, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Standards Review to facilitate a multi-phased residential development for a total of 608 dwelling units (including both single-family and multi-family units), dedication of open space, and related infrastructure. On September 17, 2013, the Hearings Official denied the concurrent applications above finding that the zone change was not consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. The Hearings Official found that the R-1 zoning, as a “threshold standard” is required to consider the other three applications. Therefore, because he denied the request for R-1 he did not consider the other three applications other than his determination that the PUD did not comply with the criteria requiring consistency with the Metro Plan at EC 9.8320(1). He found that “Reviewing and determining compliance with the PUD, TIA and Standards Review criteria based on the current record has the potential to prejudice the rights of both the applicant and opponents of the application in any future consideration of this application or another application that acknowledges the Parks and Open Space designation. Therefore, the findings and conclusions set forth below are limited to determining compliance with EC 9.8865(1) for the zone change, and EC 9.8320(1) for the PUD application.” On September 17, 2013 staff mailed both the notice of decision and notice of appeal hearing due to time constraints. On September 28, 2013, the applicant appealed the decision of the hearings official based on 2 appeal issues. On October 1, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding those appeal issues. At the public hearing, Mr. Rick Satre and Mr. Bill Kloos testified on behalf to the applicant and Mr. Jared Margolis and Mr. Sean Malone testified on behalf Page 1 of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens. Following final rebuttal by Mr. Satre and Mr. Kloos, the Planning Commission Chair closed the public hearing and the record. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission asked questions of City staff related to the application. PLANNING COMMISSION’S REVIEW ROLE The appeal consists of two appeal issues as described in further detail below. The Planning Commission should consider all evidence and testimony within the record and directed to these two appeal issues, within the context of the relevant Zone Change and PUD approval criteria. In this case, those include EC 9.8865(1) and EC 9.8320(1), concerning compliance with the Metro Plan. APPEAL ISSUES As described in the applicant’s appeal statement, two specific appeal issues are raised (see pages 2 and 3 of the written appeal statement). Below, those appeal issues are listed followed by a discussion of the issues and key questions for the Planning Commission to consider in its deliberations. Appeal Issue 1: The Hearings erred in finding that part of the site plan designated Parks and Open Space (POS). The entire site is plan designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The HO should have zoned the entire site R-1. In analyzing the fundamental question raised by the Zone Change request, the Hearings Official noted the goal of the analysis is to ascertain whether it was City Council’s intent regarding the documents in question. This analysis walked through review of the relevant documents and consideration of evidence and argument from the applicant, staff, neighbors and the neighborhood association. To provide a roadmap in determining if the Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official determination, questions are posed below that follow the analysis the Hearings Official provided. Metro Plan Diagram Hearings Official: On page 8 of the Hearings Official’s decision the Hearings Official found that he agreed with staff and opponents of the application, that upon reviewing the 2004 diagram at the “11 X 17” scale there was no trouble determining that it designates part of the subject site as POS based on physical reference points as shown. Applicant/Appelant: The appellant on page 2 of the appeal statement asserts that the “HO goofed”. There is only a “smidgen” of green on the property and therefore the proper reading of the diagram as directed by the Knutson case was to refer to the refinement plan for a property when the boundary line between two plan designations is near the property line. The refinement plan designates the property as LDR. The appellant provides more detailed discussion of the Knutson case beginning on page 5 of the appeal statement. Opponents of the Application: Mr. Malone on behalf of the Laurel Hill Valley citizens provided a letter and testimony at the hearing noting that it was clearly evident that the subject property contained the POS designation because the map contains adequate reference points including the Urban Growth Boundary and 30th Avenue. Further discussion of this issue is provided on pages 2 and 3 of his letter. Page 2  Key Question #1 Does the Planning Commission agree that the Metro Plan diagram clearly designates some portion of the property for Parks and Opens Space (POS)? Metro Plan Text Hearings Official – On Pages 8 and 9 of the decision, the Hearings Official found that the next step before referencing the refinement plan should be to review the Metro Plan text in regards to Council intent. While the Hearings Official noted that the diagram was not ambiguous, if there was ambiguity about whether the City Council intended to impose a particular plan designation, reference to the Metro Plan text is required. The Hearings Official references the Metro Plan which states that the written text of the plan take precedent over the diagram. He also cited Metro Plan Section II G which describes the POS designation. “This designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and regional scale parks and publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries in recognition of their role as visual open space. This designation also includes other privately owned lands in response to Metro Plan policies, such as the South Hills ridgeline, the Amazon corridor, the “Q” Street Ditch, and buffers separating sand and gravel designations from residential lands.” The Hearings Official noted that because the text identifies the South Hills Ridgeline as being privately owned lands that fall within the POS designation, this is indication that it was the intent of the Council to include this area as POS. If there is ambiguity in the Metro Plan, it is resolved by the associated text. Applicant/Appelant: The appellant addresses this issue on page 7 of the appeal statement. He notes that the language referenced by the Hearings Official describes what kind of land can be given the POS designation but not how far the designation extends. Following the Hearings Official reasoning would apply the designation all along the ridgeline. The reasoning that the Hearings Official provided does not address Metro Plan policies and reasoning did not support deviating from the Court of Appeals rule of thumb for interpreting the plan. Opponents of the Application: Mr. Malone and Mr. Margolis supported the Hearings Official’s position noting in testimony that the UGB was located at the top of the ridgeline and if the intent was to include the ridgeline it would be both sides as shown by the graphic diagram. It was added that there were areas on the diagram were the POS designation was clearly along the edge of the UGB, but not in this case. Key Question #2 Does the Planning Commission agree that the Metro Plan text supports the location of the Parks and Opens Space (POS) on the subject property? Application of the Laurel Hill Plan and relation to Knutson case law. To assist the planning commission in their review of the following testimony, staff felt it would be helpful to provide a synopsis of the Knutson case. We also encourage the commission to read these decisions in full. A full copy of the LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions are attached. Page 3 In Knutson, a property owner sought to rezone property from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and GO (General Office) to C-2. The Metro Plan Diagram was not entirely clear what designation was assigned to the subject property. A map in the applicable refinement plan, the Willakenzie Area Plan, was clearer and showed the subject properties designated commercial. LUBA and the Court held that, in that circumstance, where the Metro Plan Diagram was unclear, the Metro Plan Diagram and Willakenzie Area Plan are not in conflict. Therefore, the refinement plan, which shows a more detailed but not conflicting representation of the appropriate designation, controls. The Applicant: The applicant contends that Knutson is directly on point and dictates the city’s determination in this case. They argue that if a property is not parcel-specific, Knutson applies and the refinement plan controls. The applicant argues that, like in Knutson, the Metro Plan and the refinement plan are not in conflict. Rather, the Metro Plan is ambiguous, and the refinement plan must be used to resolve that ambiguity. The applicant includes various excerpts from the Court of Appeals and LUBA rulings in the appeal statement including the excerpt below. Excerpt from Court of Appeals in Knutson In reaching that conclusion, LUBA necessarily rejected the proposition that an inconsistency existed between the subject property's designation in the Metro Plan and its designation in the WAP. Although it is clear that the Metro Plan is the guiding document and takes precedence over a refinement plan where inconsistencies exist, the Metro Plan diagram is only a generalized depiction of land uses. The Metro Plan diagram provides few clear boundaries between land use designations. Although some designations appear to border named streets, most do not, and the diagram's comparatively small one inch to 8,000-foot scale does not include any depiction of individual lots. As a consequence, the land use designation for properties near the boundary between use designations on the diagram is unclear. As indicated by the Metro Plan, those ambiguities require reference to local government refinement documents to conclusively determine the applicable designation. Under those circumstances, there is no inconsistency between the Metro Plan and a refinement plan. Instead, the refinement plan serves to resolve the inherent ambiguities that exist in a general diagram such as the Metro Plan diagram. The applicant asserts that as the subject property is “near the boundary between use designations on the diagram, the designation is “unclear” therefore the refinement plan should be looked to for clarity and the designation should be LDR. Hearings Official/Opponents: The neighbors and the hearings official, on the other hand, contend that this case is different than Knutson. In this case, they point out, there is a reference point that helps determine, on the Metro Plan Diagram, where the parks and open space designation is located. The court in Knutson specifically pointed out that, in that case, there were no reference points that helped to determine where the property lay in relation to the designation shown on the Diagram. Excerpt for LUBA decision in Knutson Based on our review of the Metro Plan diagram, it is not “clearly evident” to us, or evident at all, that the subject property lies entirely outside the Commercial blob west of Coburg Road. As Page 4  noted, the western and northern edges of that Commercial blob have no referents, such as a street or an intersection that can be used to fix its position with respect to particular property boundaries with even approximate accuracy. The subject parcels might adjoin the Commercial blob, as the planning commission and hearings official concluded, or they might lie partially inside, or even entirely inside, that red blob. Given the small scale of the Metro Plan diagram, and the lack of referents to fix the western and northern edges of the Commercial blob west of Coburg Road to any particular property, we do not see that it is possible, based solely on examination of the Metro Plan diagram, to determine the plan designation of the subject parcels. We further agree with Knutson that Carlson states the correct view of the relationship between the Metro Plan diagram and refinement plans, and how to determine the plan designation of property located near the borders of blobs on the Metro Plan diagram, at least where the pertinent borders cannot be accurately correlated to any referents or property boundaries, as here. Because of that lack of “referents,” LUBA and the Court held that the plan designation as shown on the Metro Plan Diagram was ambiguous. They determined that it was appropriate in that circumstance to use the refinement plan to resolve the ambiguity. In this case, the UGB and 30th Avenue serve as these referents. Key Question #3 Does the Planning Commission agree that the Hearings Official properly distinguished this case from the Knutson case and properly concluded that the refinement plan diagram and Metro Plan diagram are in conflict? If so, the Metro Plan diagram would prevail. If the Planning Commission determines that the plan designation is clearly shown on the Metro Plan Diagram to the north of those reference points, staff believe the circumstances in this case adequately distinguish it from the Knutson case. If the commission agrees, the applicable refinement plan, which shows no parks and open space designation at all, conflicts with the Metro Plan Diagram. In that instance, the Metro Plan controls over the conflicting refinement plan. Depending on how the Planning Commission answers the key questions above, the Planning Commission appears to have two options: Option 1 Conclude that the Hearings Official was correct in concluding the refinement plan diagram and Metro Plan diagram are in conflict and the Parks and Opens designation needs to be implemented on the subject property. As a starting point, the commission could rely on the factors included in the Hearings Official’s decision, supplemented by Mr. Malone’s Letter. This approach would result in affirming the Hearings Official denial of the Zone Change based on approval criterion EC 9.8865(1), and PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8320(1). Page 5  Option 2 Conclude that the Hearings Official erred and should have determined that the refinement plan diagram designation of LDR is the proper designation. As a starting point, the commission could rely on the factors included in the applicant’s appeal statement and final argument. This approach would result in overturning the Hearings Official denial of the Zone Change based on approval criterion EC 9.8865(1) and PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8320(1), resulting in approval of the zone change. The Planning Commission would then turn to the PUD, TIA and SDR applications and come to a decision on these applications which is discussed further under Appeal Issue 2. Appeal Issue 2: Because the HO got the plan designation wrong, he erroneously failed to evaluate the tentative PUD application and related Standards Review and TIA applications. Those applications should have been approved, either outright or with conditions. If the Planning Commission agreed with the Hearings Official in regards to the denial of the zone change, Appeal Issue 2 is moot as it is based on an assertion that the Hearings Official erred in his determination about the correct plan designation. No further action would be required, other than crafting the final order to affirm the Hearings Official’s decision. If the Planning Commission concluded that the Hearings Official erred and should have determined that the refinement plan diagram designation of LDR is the proper designation, the Planning Commission will need to look further at the related PUD, Standards Review and TIA applications. Deliberations would need to be conducted to determine what findings to adopt for these three applications. If the Commission finds the applications should be denied, based on the approval criterion, findings to that effect will need to be adopted to affirm the Hearings Official. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the applications should be approved, then it would reverse the denial on those applications, and adopt findings to support its approval. Based on the Planning Commission’s direction on the tasks above, staff will prepare a final order on the remand issues for consideration and final action. PUBLIC RECORD The entire record is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices and has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Steve Ochs, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682-5453, or by e-mail at steve.p.ochs@ci.eugene.or.us Page 6