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 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2015 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.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 (Z 15-5) – DELIBERATIONS/ACTION Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, 541-682-5437 erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us 1:15 p.m. IV. 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; John Jaworski (Chair); Jeffrey Mills; Brianna Nicolello; William Randall; Kristen Taylor (Vice Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 26, 2015 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Subject: Deliberations: Laurel Ridge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) ACTION REQUESTED To deliberate and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official’s approval of the Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Extensive background information on this proposal and the previous Hearings Official decision is included in the full record provided separately, as well as the prior Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the public hearing. On October 20, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider testimony from both the applicant and appellants. The applicant’s attorney, Bill Kloos, and project representative, Richard Satre, were present at the hearing and provided oral testimony in support of the Hearings Official’s decision, and in response to the appeal. Members of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) neighborhood were present to testify in support of their appeal and to recommend that the Planning Commission revise the approval to adopt an alternative boundary line that would include more PRO zoning on the subject site, or otherwise deny the application for lack of compliance with the Metro Plan. Immediately following the public hearing on October 20th, 2015, the Planning Commission began deliberations and asked staff for clarification on pertinent issues. The Commission also passed two motions that ultimately acknowledged the applicant’s “motion to strike” and accepted the appellant’s revised appeal statement. Due to the limited time available for deliberations following the public hearing, no actions were taken regarding the Planning Commission’s direction on substantive issues (i.e. the boundary line between R-1 and PRO zoning, or whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official’s decision). As mentioned in the previous AIS for the public hearing, the PC’s first step during deliberations is to determine whether or not the HO erred in his decision. In the event the PC decides the HO erred, the PC should use evidence from the record to articulate the exact way(s) in which he erred. Further, if the PC decides an alternative zone boundary line is appropriate, evidence in the record should be used to support a new placement of the line. 1 PC Agenda - Page 1 The attached memo from Anne Davies, Assistant City Attorney, provides a detailed summary of what staff expects to be the key issue in this appeal; i.e., did the HO err by limiting his review to referents on the Metro Plan Diagram? NEXT STEPS Given the limited time available under the 120 day rule, the PC needs to determine their position on this appeal at the October 26 meeting, including specific direction on any modified findings, if any. Pending further deliberation and direction from the commission, staff will prepare a Final Order for consideration and final action at your next meeting scheduled for November 2nd, 2015. Final action will need to be taken no later than November 6th, 2015 in order to meet the statutory deadline for a final local decision. The Planning Commission has essentially three options: 1) uphold the Hearings Official decision; 2) revise the approval to include an alternative boundary line; or 3) reject the Hearings Official decision and deny the proposal outright. ATTACHMENTS A. City Attorney Memo The full record, prior to the most recent open record sequence, has already been provided to commissioners separately, and is also available to the public on the City’s website at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=Z-15-0005 A hardcopy of the complete record can also be made available for free inspection at the Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies may also be obtained at cost. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at 541- 682-5437 or via email at erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us 2 PC Agenda - Page 2  Date: October 23, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Anne C. Davies Subject: Planning Commission Deliberations—Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5) This memorandum is intended to assist the Planning Commission with its deliberations on the appeal of the Laurel Ridge zone change this coming Monday, October 26, 2015. During deliberations on Tuesday evening, it became apparent that appellants’ first assignment of error is the pivotal issue in this case. Appellants’ first assignment alleges that the Hearings Official erred in not taking into consideration the city limits line. The issue presented to the Commission, and the issue that the Commission was already grappling with on Tuesday, was whether the Commission is legally permitted to use referents or other sources outside the Metro Plan Diagram itself, in locating the subject property on the Metro Plan Diagram and, thus, determining the location of the split between Parks and Open Space and Low Density Residential designations. The Hearings Official concluded that he could not use the city limits line to assist in his decision. HO Decision at 6; PC Record at 44: “In fact, if the question were where the boundary is most likely located using any available information, I would likely agree with LHVC. In determining the boundary, however, we are all bound by the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. As staff’s September 2, 2015 memorandum explains, LHVC used maps generated by LCOG from a digital version that is different from the 2004 Metro Plan. Even though that digitized version is likely more accurate than the 2004 Metro Plan, even LCOG acknowledges that only the 2004 Metro Plan is the official version of the diagram. Furthermore, city limits and tax lots are not depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. So even though LHVC’s maps may be theoretically more accurate, they are not more accurate for determining the boundary by using the 2004 Metro Plan diagram.”1 The applicant has also taken that position. 1 The parties and Hearings Official recognize that LUBA misunderstood the status of the Metro Plan Diagram, i.e., the City does not have an adopted digitized map. The 2004 Metro Plan Diagram was “derived” from a digital database; however, the hard copy of the 11 x 17 map was the only diagram that was officially adopted. {00183489;1 } PC Agenda - Page 3 Planning Commission October 23, 2015 Page 2 This case presents an issue that has not previously been before the Planning Commission. I.e., given that the blobby Metro Plan Diagram controls the designations, where exactly, on the ground, is the dividing line between two designations on a property that is split-designated? In making that call, the parties take differing positions about what information can be used in locating that line. Because the Planning Commission has not had to resolve this issue anywhere else in the City, LUBA has not had occasion to address this issue either. Accordingly, there is no legal guidance from LUBA directly informing your decision whether to allow information that is not on the Metro Plan Diagram to assist in locating the property, or the line separating designations, on the Diagram. The issue is not well briefed by either of the parties: the applicant merely claims that the Commission can’t use non-Diagram sources, and the appellants merely claim that the Commission can. The applicant asserts, without much in the way of legal analysis, that the Planning Commission is stuck with the Metro Plan Diagram. The Hearings Official agreed with the applicant. The hard copy of the 2004 adopted Metro Plan Diagram must be the underlying basis for the Commission’s decision; nobody asserts otherwise. Applicant’s position appears to be that, once the subject property is superimposed onto the Metro Plan Diagram, no further reference to anything non-Diagram related is allowed. There is support for applicant’s position. The 11 x 17 version of the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram is the only officially adopted version of the Diagram. Enlarging the Diagram, as suggested by LUBA, and superimposing the subject property on that enlarged map, is necessary to determine where the line is. However, resort to outside sources must be limited because the HO’s charge was to interpret the diagram itself and thus determine the appropriate location for the line between two designations, as that line is depicted on the Diagram. The Planning Commission can only adopt a different line than the one approved by the HO if it first determines that the HO erred. That said, there is also support for appellants’ position. As appellants point out, LUBA suggested on more than one occasion that reference to information outside the Metro Plan Diagram might be appropriate in some situations.2 Indeed, because the Metro Plan Diagram is not parcel-specific, and does not indicate property boundary lines, both parties have superimposed a land survey drawing of the subject property on a blown up version of the 2004 2 “Because none of the city’s comprehensive maps in this area are property specific, references to other maps in the record are necessary to locate the boundaries of the subject property.” LUBA opinion at page 16; PC Record at 1242. “It may be possible to scale up the digital version of the map, overlay it with property lines from a digital database, and determine the precise plan designation boundaries on the subject property with reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is not possible, the city and petitioner will have to do the best they can with the tools at their disposal.” LUBA opinion at page 21; PC Record at 1247. {00183489;1 } PC Agenda - Page 4 Planning Commission October 23, 2015 Page 3 Metro Plan Diagram. That land survey drawing is itself information that is not shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. However, it is necessary to use this drawing to at least begin to locate the property on the Diagram. In conclusion, if the Commission believes the HO erred by limiting his review to referents on the Metro Plan Diagram, the question presented to the Planning Commission is “what other information or referents, which do not appear on the Metro Plan Diagram, should be used to help determine the location of the line?” In making that determination, there likely is more risk of a remand from LUBA the further afield the Planning Commission goes from relying on the Metro Plan Diagram. However, there is no clear legal precedent that allows or disallows the Planning Commission’s use of information that does not appear in the Metro Plan diagram in the context of this zoning change application. ACD:abm {00183489;1 } PC Agenda - Page 5