Item 3: Ordinance on Lane Memorial Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Even if the site’s current designation was intended to protect the scenic area, the proposed change would not diminish any protections afforded under Goal 5. Whether residential uses “could be conflicting uses with” the identified Goal 5 area may depend upon the definition of “conflicting use.” The standard definition of “conflicting use” at OAR 660-023-0010(1) is: “a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource (Except as provided in OAR 660-023-0180(1)(b).” If this definition is applied, the question under OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b) would be ‘whether a residential use could adversely affect the Goal 5 site “Scenic Area”.’ (Note that OAR 660-023- 0180(1)(b) applies only to mineral and aggregate resources, and as such, is not applicable to this request). In determining if the new residential uses could adversely affect the Goal 5 site, a comparison can be drawn to existing allowed uses as a cemetery and regulations that would act to preserve the portion of the site as a ”Scenic Area”. If no amendment is granted, the remainder of the subject site could be developed as a cemetery. Cemeteries are allowed subject to an approved conditional use permit, which includes approval criteria addressing natural resource and tree protection. The impacts to the site from such development would include activities such as grading and tree removal, which are similar to the impacts to natural features that would arise if the site was developed for residential uses. Future residential uses and development would be subject to similar natural resource and tree protection requirements through the subdivision or other land use application process. In either scenario, the level of resource protection under Goal 5 would not change. Therefore, OAR 660-023-0250 (3)(b) above is also not applicable as the plan amendment does not adversely affect the Goal 5 resource. The applicant’s findings conclude that the new uses could conflict with the Goal 5 resource and has submitted a concurrent zone change (City file Z 09-1) to add the /SR overlay to the subject property as a means of ensuring resource protection as the property is developed. With the /SR overlay, future development applications would be required to be approved through the site review process. Application of the /SR is not required in the context of this Goal, as the above findings demonstrate that the plan amendment does not adversely affect the Goal 5 resource. The applicant also provided additional findings and ESEE analysis in a letter dated December 7, 2009 to the Eugene Planning Commission from Dan Terrell. That letter is hereby incorporated into these findings by reference. Per the findings above it is found that the plan amendment does not affect a Goal 5 resource and further Goal 5 considerations are not required. For this reason, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Findings – Lane Memorial Gardens (MA 08-1and Z 09-1) Page 4