Item A: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan (Huntington Crossing)

Home Browse Search

Zdzienicki, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that incidental trips were also accounted'for in the TIA and staff concurred with the applicant there would be still be a reduction in trips from the development. Mr. Hledik asked why the site was not included in the Metro Plan industrial lands inventory. Mr. Nystrom speculated it had to do with the size and configuration of the parcel in question. He added that was not unusual for many parts of the City's land inventories. Mr. Hledik noted the criteria for amending a refinement plan, which included a.change in circumstances. He said the findings demonstrating consistency with the Metro Plan as it relatedto Goal 10, Housing, mentioned the fact the parcel was not included in the residential lands supply. He suggested the applicant made a stronger argument in his application related to the change in circumstance, which had to do with the residential densities expected but not realized in the Crescent Village development. He asked if staff concurred. Mr. Nystrom said staff did not find that as compelling an argument. The development occurring now at Crescent Village was being built within the established densities. Staff had first looked at the refinement plan and determined the need for a plan amendment was related to the need for consistency with the Metro Plan. That was the driving force behind the amendment. He perceived the other issue to be incidental but not as compelling. Mr. Hledik asked if staff found them to be valid. Mr. Nystrom said not to the same degree as the applicant. He did not think the cotnnlission,needed to rely on that as a finding as.he considered the finding related to consistency. sufficient. Mr. Carroll asked if the Campus Industrial designation allowed for'small-scale restaurants. Ms. McKinney said yes, very in limited, circumstances; the restaurant must be associated with an industrial use, andtheiise must be approved through a discretionary land use approval process. Mr. Carroll asked what development standards distinguished Campus Industrial from other industrial zones., Ms. McKinney indicated that higher standards for landscaping and additional compatibility standards distinguished the zone from other industrial zones. Mr. Carroll referred to the site plans submitted with the applicant and asked if staff had looked at the location of the transit stop to see if it would work. Ms. McKinney said no, as the application was not a development proposal. Mr. Sullivan said the staff-prepared findings for Goal 9 indicated that the City of Eugene had enough industrial, land but what he had read had indicated to him that was in question in regard to what land was shovel-ready an4 what was not; more importantly, the industrial land 'inventory was yet to be presented to the public. He was hesitant to conclude that there was plenty ()fshovel-ready industrial land in Eugene. He believed that out.of 1,212 acres, or 484 acres was actually available. He asked staff to consider a response at some point. Mr. Sullivan suggested the Lane County Planning Commission'would also have to make a recommenda- tion to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the refinement plan amendment because of the need for a ,finding of consistency with State Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. He recalled that a letter of opposition to the application related to police protection in the area and the high property crime rate in Willakenzie. The County would have to provide police service to the area at a time wh~n it was strapped for funds. He believed there would be a public safety issue until the property was annexed. Mr. Sullivan referred to the letter provided to the commissions by Lane County staff Celia Barry, who did not seem to concur with Eugene staff about the conditionQf the City road. He did not know if that any impact on the proposal but needed clarification on that issue. October 24, 2006 Page 5