Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, Oregon 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, APRIL 24, 2017 – REGULAR MEETING (11:00 a.m.) I. PUBLIC COMMENT 11:00 AM 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. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 11:10 AM A. Other Items from Commission B. Other Items from Staff C. Learning: How are we doing? III. WORK SESSION: ENVISION EUGENE- URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY PROPOSAL DELIBERATIONS (3 of 3) Including the Clear Lake Overlay Zone 11:30 AM Lead Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635 terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Vice Chair); John Jaworski; Jeffrey Mills; Brianna Nicolello; William Randall; Kristen Taylor (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 24, 2017 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding and Heather O’Donnell, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Envision Eugene: Urban Growth Boundary Proposal Deliberations & Eugene Planning Commission Recommendation ISSUE STATEMENT Eugene is preparing to adopt a new Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) following several years of community work and technical analysis. The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a public hearing on the UGB adoption package on March 7. On April 10, the Eugene Planning Commission began its deliberations on the proposal. On April 17, the meeting was devoted entirely to the topic of the Clear Lake overlay zone proposed to be applied in the Clear Lake expansion area. On April 24, their third and final deliberations meeting, the Eugene Planning Commission will finish their deliberations and finalize their recommendation on the UGB adoption package to City Council. BACKGROUND The UGB adoption package is made up of two main components: a jobs, parks and schools package, and a residential package. Each Planning Commissioner was provided a binder containing the draft UGB adoption package materials from January 2017 and February 2017 updates, which are available online at http://www.eugene-or.gov/2987/Adopting-Our- Urban-Growth-Boundary. Public testimony received through the close of the Planning Commission’s record can be found here https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31250. Verbal testimony can be viewed by watching the March 7 Planning Commission webcast here: http://eugene.ompnetwork.org/. Deliberations Process At the April 17 deliberations, the entire meeting was devoted to the Clear Lake Overlay Zone, including the revisions staff proposed in response to public comment. The Planning Commission asked for clarifications and additional revisions to the Clear Lake Overlay Zone, which are addressed in the memo labeled Attachment A. The meeting of April 24 the Eugene Planning Commission will finish the Clear Lake Overlay Zone discussion, pick up the remaining items from where the April 10 th left off (with the parks expansion study) and otherwise be devoted to developing the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the UGB adoption package to the City Council. Page 1 Staff will walk through the items in Attachment A at the meeting, devoting about one hour to revisions to the Clear Lake Overlay Zone. Two options for maps depicting the separation requirements of the overlay zone are included in Attachment B. Once discussion of the Clear Lake Overlay conclude, the Commission will resume discussion and deliberations of the remaining items in the adoption package, picking up with the parks expansion study (Tab J Appendix C of the adoption package binder). The bulk of the remaining two hours will be devoted to the residential land ordinance and study. NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission’s recommendations will be updated to reflect any additional items identified during the April 24 meeting. Staff will finalize the list of changes for Planning Commission approval, and the adoption package will be updated and published as version 2, Planning Commission Recommendation. The recommendations will then be forwarded to the Lane County Planning Commission and the Eugene City Council. A memo from the Planning Commission highlighting certain aspects of the adoption package will also be sent to Council. This memo is still under development and will be finalized for approval by the Commission before forwarding to City Council. Lane County’s Planning Commission is scheduled to deliberate and form their recommendations on May 2. The Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners will hold work sessions, a public hearing, and deliberations to consider the Planning Commissions’ recommendations beginning in May. ATTACHMENTS A. Clear Lake Overlay Zone – Staff Response to April 17 Deliberations B. Clear Lake Overlay Zone - Separation Requirement Map Options FOR MORE INFORMATION Contact Terri Harding at 541-682-5635, terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488, heather.m.o’donnell@ci.eugene.or.us Page 2  Attachment A Memorandum Date: April 24, 2017 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding & Sarah Allison, Planning Division Subject: Planning Commission Comments Regarding Clear Lake Overlay Zone There were several items in the proposed Clear Lake Overlay Zone of the UGB adoption package that the Planning Commission asked staff to review for further deliberations. The topics are generally provided in the order of the proposed code amendments and include a summary of their discussion, and staff response or proposed revisions. 9.4165 - /CL Overlay Zone Special Application and Development Standards This section of the code as drafted specifies additional requirements for development permits proposing a new building, change of use, additional use or building expansion that exceeds 25 percent of the existing square footage on the development site, or land use applications other than Type I applications. It includes informational requirements for applications, development standards and performance standards within the overlay, and a list of prohibited uses within the overlay. The language in this section was developed in close coordination with environmental justice advocates and related organizations that participated in the Clear Lake Overlay Zone subcommittee. Several questions asked by the Planning Commission are best answered with some contextual information from the City Code. One consideration that applies to several subsections is the question of whether land use applications, in addition to development permits, should trigger additional requirements. The table, below, is intended to show all uses that would trigger a land use application in the base zones, and any prohibition or separation of that use in the Clear Lake Overlay Zone. Uses that Trigger a Land Use Application for the Base Zones of the Clear Lake Area Land Use Permit Land Use Permit Prohibited or Uses Required in Campus Required in Light- Separated Use Industrial (E-1) Medium Industrial (I-2) Under /CL Mineral Resource Mining, (No land use application Recovery, Stockpiling, - Prohibited) Site Review or PUD Prohibited Processing Ballet, Dance, Martial Arts, and Gymnastic CUP or PUD CUP or PUD Defer to base zone School/Academy/Studio Church, Synagogue, or CUP or PUD (No land use application Defer to base zone Temple - Prohibited) Race Track, including drag (No land use application Prohibited (not strip and go-cart tracks - Prohibited) CUP or PUD including indoor uses) Theater, Live Entertainment CUP or PUD CUP or PUD Defer to base zone Page 3  Attachment A Land Use Permit Land Use Permit Prohibited or Uses Required in Campus Required in Light- Separated Use Industrial (E-1) Medium Industrial (I-2) Under /CL Homeless Shelter (No land use application CUP or PUD Defer to base zone - Prohibited) Asphalt Mixing and (No land use application Site Review or PUD Prohibited Batching - Prohibited) Concrete Mixing and (No land use application Site Review or PUD Separated Use Batching - Prohibited) Correctional Facility, excluding Residential CUP or PUD CUP or PUD Prohibited Treatment Center Residential Treatment CUP or PUD (No land use application Defer to base zone Center - Prohibited) Fiber Optic Station Site Review or PUD (No land use application Defer to base zone – Permitted Outright) Pump Station Site Review or PUD (No land use application Defer to base zone – Permitted Outright) Water Reservoir, elevated Site Review or PUD Site Review or PUD Defer to base zone above ground level Garbage Dump, Sanitary (No land use application CUP or PUD Prohibited Land Fill - Prohibited) Heliport and Helistop (No land use application CUP or PUD Defer to base zone - Prohibited) Kennel (No land use application CUP or PUD Defer to base zone - Prohibited) 1. Application Requirements The additional application requirements for this overlay zone are 1) documentation of a neighborhood/applicant meeting per EC 9.7007, and 2) a pre-clearance letter from LRAPA confirming that the proposed use could meet air quality standards. Both of these are required in the current draft for applications as listed at the beginning of this section. The intent of these requirements is to establish contact between the developer and the neighborhood, and to (early in the process) make a developer aware of LRAPA’s air quality standards that will apply to the proposed use. This requirement is not intended to directly relate to a particular criterion for approval that the City will apply in reviewing the application. Issues raised by the Planning Commission include: • LRAPA reference – LRAPA, the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, is the organization with whom the overlay language was developed, and is specifically referenced. A concern was raised that should LRAPA cease to exist, the code would be inapplicable. In that case, an arrangement with the air quality regulator with jurisdiction over the Clear Lake area (potentially the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) would need to be made to provide such pre-clearance letters if that requirement were to continue. o Suggested way to address this concern – In the event that LRAPA ceases to exist, change the reference to “LRAPA” through code maintenance to the appropriate agency at that time, or change the requirement if no such agency is able to provide pre- clearance letters (state agencies could provide letters for their standards, but those are different from local LRAPA standards). 2 Page 4  Attachment A • Applicability to Land Use Applications – The inclusion of land use applications in the lead- in text for 9.4165(1) and exclusion of land use divisions from the pre-clearance letter requirement at 9.4165(1)(b)caused confusion among the Planning Commission. Based on this comment, staff reviewed the uses that would trigger a land use application other than Type 1 (listed in the table above) in addition to land divisions. o Suggested way to address this concern –The current code already requires neighborhood/applicant meetings for subdivisions and partition that create 3 lots, conditional use permits (CUPs), and planned unit developments (PUDs). Also, uses that would trigger a land use application are a) either non-polluting or restricted elsewhere in the overlay and b) would be required to address both criteria upon development permit application. Therefore, staff feel that the reference to land use applications should be removed from this subsection as noted both in (1) and (1)(b). 2. Development Standards The additional development standards for development in this overlay zone relate to the number of businesses on a single tax lot, lighting, indoor activity, and separation of uses from park, school, or residential areas. Issues raised by the Planning Commission include: • Applicability to Land Use Applications– While this issue was raised regarding section (1) Application Requirements, it is also relevant to this section, (2) Development Standards. The reference to land use applications could be removed from this criterion, as the standards are specific to development. • Single Business Operation Language – The term “operation” was suggested to be unclear, as it is used in other contexts to be a subset of a business’s activities. o Suggested way to address this concern – Proposed changes to this section for clarity: “Single Business Operation. Development shall be limited to a single business, whether operated by owner, lessee or renter, operation per tax lot as shown on Figure 9.4170 or subsequently created as permitted by the lot standards in EC 9.4170.” • Clarity of Land Affected by Separation of Uses – A map showing the area in which one of the listed uses could not occur (the area that is within 1000 feet of land designated Residential, Parks and Open Space, or Government and Education (other than the Airport), is provided in Attachment B (page 1) for reference. We recommend against the adoption of such a map in to the land use code; this is for illustrative purposes only. o Suggested way to address this concern – Should the Planning Commission determine that the 1000-foot buffer is unclear or excessive, an alternative would be to prohibit the current list of separated uses within the area designated for Campus Industrial in the Clear Lake Overlay Zone, shown in Attachment B (page 2). • Inclusion of Blast Furnace Reference – Blast furnaces are currently parenthetically referenced as a prohibited use, both to clarify that it is not one of the uses allowed more than 1000 feet from parks, schools and residences, and for consistency with other language in the code. It is acknowledged that such furnaces have not been built in this country for several decades. Such a use is furthermore prohibited in two other areas of the code, making this parenthetical, while consistent, also redundant. o Suggested way to address this concern – Remove the parenthetical reference to blast furnaces. • Exemption from Wholesale, Warehousing and Distribution Separation – The proposed code includes an exemption from separation requirements for this use “unless provided in association with a business in one of Eugene’s targeted industries as identified in the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, such as food and beverage manufacturing.” Concerns 3 Page 5  Attachment A with this language were that it was 1)unclear, 2) inflexible regarding future industries of interest, 3) inappropriate to apply exclusively to targeted industries, and 4) ineffective in addressing potential impacts from the use. o Suggested ways to address these concerns –  For issue 1, clarity, this revision is proposed: (unless provided in association withas an accessory use to a business in one of Eugene’s targeted industries as identified in the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, such as food and beverage manufacturing).  Regarding issue 2, the reference to the comprehensive plan, rather than a specific list of industries, allows future industries that the City targets to be included in this reference as they are adopted into the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends no change.  Regarding issue 3, if the Planning Commission decides the focus on targeted industries is inappropriate, they could either recommend striking the exception all together, or leaving it as “unless provided as an accessory use.”  Regarding issue 4, the impact addressed by this particular separation requirement addresses on-site circulation and associated impacts (noise, exhaust, etc.), rather than street traffic. The accessory nature of the use and limited scope entailed in that is the reasoning behind allowing it as a limited exception. Staff recommends no change. 3. Performance Standards This requirement is for a “statement on the application plans committing the applicant to compliance” with performance standards regarding odors and emissions, vibration and noise. Issues raised by the Planning Commission include: • Applicability to Land Use Applications– While this issue was raised regarding section (1) Application Requirements, it is also relevant to this section (3) Performance Standards. The reference to land use applications could be removed from these criteria, as the standards are specific to development performance. • Measurability of Odors, Emissions and Vibrations – The proposed code uses the threshold of “noticeable at the property line by a human observer relying on human senses without the aid of a device.” Planning Commissioners were concerned that this was both too difficult to quantify and too low of a threshold, potentially discouraging otherwise desirable business development. The proposed code language was developed in cooperation with City’s Code Enforcement staff. The commitment to comply placed on plan sheets recognizes that not all operational issues are known at the time of permitting, and provides additional support for code enforcement staff to pursue complaints. The City’s role in these situations supplements the LRAPA enforcement staff, which is limited in their response to the measurable discharges permitted at the state level. o Relevant Adopted Nuisance Code - 6.010. Nuisances Affecting the Public. The following are nuisances which may be abated as provided in this code: f. Odors. Premises which are in such a state or condition as to cause an offensive odor or which are in an unsanitary condition. p. Others. Any other thing, substance, condition, or activity prohibited by state law, common law, this code, other ordinances, or which is determined by the council to be injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the city. 4 Page 6  Attachment A o Code enforcement staff regularly respond to odor complaints, and works with the property owner to mitigate the issue. This often results in additional filtering systems (e.g., beer fermentation, marijuana grow operations) to reduce the nuisance. o Senior members (20+ years) of Code Enforcement staff had never received a nuisance complaint for vibrations. o Suggested way to address this concerns – Add the word “offensive” before “odors” in (3)(a) to mirror EC 6.010(f). Alternatively, refer to the existing Chapter 6 enforcement provisions instead of imposing a new standard. Staff recommends the former. 4. Prohibited uses in the /CL Overlay Zone The list of prohibited uses was developed through the interdisciplinary Clear Lake Overlay Zone subcommittee, balancing the needs of economic development with those of environmental justice for the neighborhood, and intentionally giving more weight to environmental justice concerns. Targeted industries are targeted because they are both likely to locate in Eugene, and align with the overall values of the community. Portions of a targeted industry that create conflicts may be regulated or restricted to particular areas without undermining the intent behind the identification of targeted industries, which apply across the community. Issues raised by the Planning Commission include: • Reconstituted Wood Products Manufacturing - The City’s Toxics Right to Know program reports that 5 of the top 10 polluters in the 97402 zip code area were Lumber and Wood Products manufacturers, with a ‘reconstituted wood products’ use sitting at #1. While many advanced wood manufacturing activities were still permitted under the proposed overlay, this one was specifically prohibited based on lengthy discussions among subcommittee members, City toxics program staff, and in two environmental justice focus groups with community members. Staff recommends no change. • Colored glass manufacturing – A Planning Commissioner brought up a well-documented Portland case of hexavalent chromium and other heavy metals being illegally discharged, in violation of state DEQ regulations. No such local cases were identified in our Clear Lake research. The list of uses proposed for separation or prohibition were based on local and regional research of similar emissions concerns commonly associated with particular land uses. If the Planning Commission wishes to amend the overlay, ‘Glass Products’ manufacturing could be added as a prohibited use. Staff recommends no change. 9.4170 - /CL Clear Lake Overlay Zone Lot Standards This section provides context (in Subsection (1)) for the intent of the “large lot portfolio,” and provides specific lot standards for four categories of lots, depending on how they contribute to the portfolio. Subsection (2) addresses lots that may address the City’s deficit of industrial lots smaller than 10 acres, but that do not contribute to the large lot portfolio, and therefore are not subject to additional lot standards through this overlay. Subsection (3) addresses lots that do contribute to the portfolio, which are prohibited from dividing into multiple lots (with one explicit exception), and are limited in property line adjustments (which do not create new lots, but alter the size and shape of the lot) to prevent lots from being reduced below the needed acreage of contiguous unconstrained land. Subsection (4) specifically addresses the tax lot that, while of sufficient total acreage, is constrained to the point where it cannot directly provide a portfolio site. Subsection (5) addresses those lots bisected by future rights-of- way, acknowledging the need to partition in such a circumstance. The issue raised by the Planning Commission is: 5 Page 7  Attachment A • Clarity of Terms “Land Division” and “Property Line Adjustment” – The size and shape of lots can be changed in two different ways. Land division (partitions and subdivisions) creates multiple lots from a single lot without changing the boundaries shared with other lots. Property line adjustments alter one boundary between lots, transferring land from one lot to another. While these terms are explicit in the code (Property Line Adjustment in section 9.8400, and Land Division under Definitions), a concern was raised that it was not clearly defined within this overlay. o Suggested ways to address this concern – Should the Planning Commission determine that the terms “land division” and “property line adjustment” are unclear, the parenthetical “(partitions or subdivisions)” could be added after the term “land division,” and the parenthetical (EC 9.8400) could be added after the term “property line adjustment.” 9.8030 (36) – Adjustment Review – Approval Criteria: /CL Clear Lake Overlay Zone This section provides five criteria to demonstrate consistency with in order to receive an adjustment to development standards or performance standards of the Clear Lake Overlay Zone. Adjustment requires compliance with the purpose of the zone, negligible impacts to the park, school and residences, increased access to open space and enhanced ecological functions, meeting or exceeding 10 employees per acre, and is consistent with local and regional economic development goals. The issue raised by the Planning Commission is: • Excessive Requirement of 10 Employees per Acre – Given the size of the tax lots, and the total number of employees required to meet this requirement (750 or more for the largest lots), there was concern that this criterion would not be met by otherwise desirable development. o Suggested ways to address this concern – Remove this requirement for adjustment review (EC 9.8030(36)(d). Related Items 1. Economic Development, Policy 3.17 This policy addresses the protection of large industrial sites in the Clear Lake expansion area. A revision to the policy to prevent large lots from being divided or adjusted to lots smaller than 10 acres was included in the April 10 Planning Commission AIS (Attachment G) and is noted below. 3.17 Large lot preservation. Apply, monitor and maintain regulations that protect and preserve large lot industrial and employment sites (greater than 10 acres) in the Clear Lake area, and prevent re-designations or land divisions into lots smaller than 10 acres prior to securing the large lots in accordance with the stated land needs of the 2012-2032 Economic Opportunity Analysis, as shown in the following table. 6 Page 8  Attachment A 2. Split Designation and Zoning The April 10 Planning Commission AIS (Attachment G) included the staff recommendation to designate and zone tax lot 1704090002400 (near the southwest corner of Clear Lake Road and Highway 99) as solely Campus Industrial, rather than split zoned and designated. Subsequent proposed revisions to the Clear Lake Overlay negate the need for this change, allowing the original proposed split zoning to remain in the proposed UGB adoption package. 7 Page 9  Attachment B – p.1 Clear Lake Overlay Separation of Uses Area 1000 foot Option April 2017 Draft 1000 Foot Separation Area Page 10  Attachment B – p.2 Clear Lake Overlay Separation of Uses Area Campus Industrial Designation Option April 2017 Draft Campus Industrial Separation Area Page 11