HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: PH on Ordinance Regarding State Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: State Motor Pool - Plan Amendment and Zone Change
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900
(Oregon Motor Pool Site) from High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development
Designation to Commercial/Nodal Development Designation; Rezoning the Property
From I-2/Td Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone
to C-2/Td/Nd Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal
Development Overlay Zones; and Adopting a Severability Clause
Meeting Date: November 20, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Ann Siegenthaler
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5452
ISSUE STATEMENT
The State of Oregon, as applicant, requests a Metro Plan amendment and zone change for a 1.7-acre
downtown parcel currently used as a surface parking lot. The request is to change the current plan
designation from High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development to a designation of
Commercial/Nodal Development, and to change existing zoning of I-2/TD, Light-Medium Industrial
with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit
Oriented Development and Nodal Development overlay zones. No development is proposed at this
time. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
The proposed zone change is being reviewed concurrently with the proposed Metro Plan amendment.
Pursuant to EC 9.7305, when the City considers a zone change concurrently with a Metro Plan
amendment, the City is to use the applicable procedures for the Metro Plan amendment. The Metro Plan
amendment is a single jurisdiction (Type II) Metro Plan amendment inside the city limits of Eugene. In
accordance with the single jurisdiction Metro Plan amendment procedures outlined in E.C. 9.7735(4),
the City Council's decision on the requested actions must be based on the record created before the
Planning Commission; no new evidence is allowed at the council hearing (E.C. 9.7735(4)). The
decision is quasi-judicial.
BACKGROUND
No public testimony other than the applicant’s was received during the public comment period or the
public hearing before the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request. The only issue that raised a
question for the Planning Commission was initially identified in staff’s September 12, 2006, findings.
There, staff concluded that there was insufficient information in the original application to demonstrate
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061120\S0611203.doc
compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, which requires the applicant to identify
the impacts of the proposed plan amendments on transportation facilities. The applicant maintains that
the 2004 City Council findings related to the adoption of the Downtown Plan findings are sufficient to
demonstrate the current proposal's compliance with Statewide Goals and Metro Plan policies, and that
no additional findings are necessary. The issue was raised regarding the extent to which a property
owner may rely on language in the Downtown Plan to guide future City actions related to zoning and
development permits. At the Planning Commission public hearing on September 19, 2006, there was a
majority agreement among the commissioners that additional data would be needed to demonstrate
compliance with Goal 12. The Eugene Planning Commission left the record open to allow time for the
additional information to be submitted. As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant
submitted trip generation estimates on October 10, 2006. On October 30, 2006, the Planning
Commission continued its deliberations on the application and determined that the proposal complied
with all applicable approval criteria, including Goal 12, and voted to recommend approval of the request
as revised by the applicant.
Eugene Code requires that the City Council hold a public hearing on a proposed Metro Plan amendment
within 45 days of Planning Commission action. This meeting provides the required public hearing
within that time frame.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Code requires that a Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change be consistent with Metro
Plan and adopted refinement plan policies. Existing policies support both the current plan designation of
High Density Residential, and the proposed Commercial designation. Exhibit A of Attachment A, Staff
Findings, evaluates the requests relative to all of the applicable Metro Plan and refinement plan policies.
Key applicable policies and documents related to the request are noted below.
1. Maintaining the current plan designation of High Density Residential:
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services,
in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes (Policy A.11,
Metro Plan).
Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities (Policy A.19,
Metro Plan).
Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of
income levels and ownership opportunities ("Living Downtown" Policy 1, Downtown Plan).
The 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study (Ordinance No. 20159, 1999) excluded the State
Motor Pool site from consideration as "buildable land" vacant land, as that study excluded land
that was owned by a public agency and not intended for residential development. Therefore,
changing the land use designation from residential uses will not affect any adopted inventories. In
addition, because residential development is allowed under a Commercial designation, a Metro
Plan change to a Commercial designation is consistent with Metro Plan policies related to
residential land use.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061120\S0611203.doc
2. Re-designating and re-zoning the parcel to a Commercial designation/zone:
Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such
as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2
or C-3 ("Building a Downtown" Policy 3, Downtown Plan).
Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment ("Strong Regional Center" Policy 2,
Downtown Plan).
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by encouraging
businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites (Policy 6, 1992 Eugene Commercial
Lands Study).
A Commercial designation and zone, as proposed by the applicant, is strongly supported in
Downtown Plan policies, and is consistent with adopted plans and policies.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
After holding the public hearing, the City Council may:
1.As recommended by the Planning Commission, approve the Metro Plan amendment to change from
High Density Residential to Commercial and approve the Zone Change by approving the draft
ordinance and findings;
2. Approve the Metro Plan amendment and zone change with modified findings; or
3. Deny the Metro Plan amendment based on conflicts with Statewide Goals, Metro Plan, or refinement
plan policies. (Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram
amendment.)
City Council action on this item is currently scheduled for December 11, 2006. Eugene Code requires
that the City Council take action on a proposed Metro Plan amendment within 30 days of the public
hearing.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation
that the requests comply with all applicable approval criteria, and that the Metro Plan amendment and
zone change be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is suggested as action is currently scheduled for December 11, 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. _________
Exhibit A: Staff findings (revised October 16, 2006)
Exhibit B: Map showing proposed changes in Metro Plan designation and zoning
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061120\S0611203.doc
B. Planning Commission draft minutes dated October 30, 2006
C. Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary dated October 30, 2006
D. Applicant’s post hearing submittal, dated October 10, 2006, including letter from the applicant and
trip generation analysis by Lancaster Engineering dated October 6, 2006
E. Memo from Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Public Works Engineering, dated October 16, 2006, with
response to applicant's post-hearing submittal
F. Planning Commission minutes dated September 19, 2006
G. Applicant's letter of September 15, 2006, and copies of E.C. 9.9640 submitted by applicant at
Planning Commission public hearing September 19, 2006
H. Memo from Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Public Works Engineering, dated September 11, 2006,
in response to applicant's application materials; and map of "A Dozen Downtown Development
Opportunity Areas" submitted by staff at Planning Commission public hearing September 19, 2006
I. Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary dated September 19, 2006
J. Staff findings dated September 12, 2006
K. Aerial photo of site and vicinity dated September 19, 2006
L. Applicant’s Metro Plan Amendment application materials submitted April 21, 2006, and
supplemental application materials submitted June 8, July 24, and August 21, 2006
M. Applicant’s Zone Change application materials submitted April 21, 2006
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Ann Siegenthaler
Telephone: 682-5452
Staff E-Mail: ann.siegenthaler@ci.eugene.or.us.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061120\S0611203.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY
IDENTIFIED AS MAP 17-03-30-44, T~ LOT 8900 (OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE)
FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USEINODAL DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNATION TO COMMERCIALINODAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION;
REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM I-2/TD LIGHT -MEDIUM. INDUSTRIAL WITH
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE TO C-2/TDIND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND
NODAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONES; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On April 21, 2006, the State of Oregon Administrative Services submitted an
application for a Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment and concurrent zone change to
redesignate and rezone property identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900, referred to as the
Oregon. Motor Pool site. The applicant requested a Metro Plan designation change from High
Density Residential/Mixed Use / Nodal Development to Commercial/Nodal Development
designation. The zone change requested would change the site's zoning from 1-2/TD, Light-
Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TDIND,
Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay
Zones.
B. Following receipt of the City's completeness review comments the applicant
provided supplemental materials on June 8, 2006, July 14, 2006, and July 24, 2006. On July 28,
2006, at the applicant's request, the application was deemed complete without submissi9n of
additional requested information. On August 21, 2006 the applicant submitted additional revised
findings for Goal 12.
C. This proposal came to the City of Eugene for action pursuant to procedures for
amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan described in the Metro Plan and Chapter 9 of the
Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), which establishes the Eugene City Council as the approval body for
Type II Metro Plan diagram amendments located within the incorporated city limits of Eugene.
D. On August 3, 2006, notice of the proposed Metro Plan amendment and zone
change was mailed to the Department of Land Conservation and Development as required . by
provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 and in accordance with state statutes.
E. Referral comments were requested on July 27, 2006. after receipt of the initial
application, and on August 2, 2006 after supplemental materials were received, from the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Springfield, Lane County, the Downtown
Neighbors Association, and to City departments.
,.
F. Notice of the September 19, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject
Ordinance - 1
property, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and other interested parties who had
requested notice on August 18, 2006. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5) on August 17, 2006 and published in the Register
Guard on August 30, 2006.
G. On September 19, 2006, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the application and .left the record open for additional information.
H. On, October 30, 2006, the Eugene Planning Commission continued its
deliberations on tlie application and voted to recommend approval of the request as revised by
the applicant.
I. On November 9, ~006, notice of the 'Eugene City Council public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, neighborhood association, and those who had requested to be placed on
the interested parties list for the Metro Plan amendment. Notice was also published in the
Register Guard, and the notice and text of this Ordinance posted on the City's web site on
November 5, 2006.
J. The Eugene City Council held a public hearing on the request on November 20,
2006, and is now ready to take action on the requested amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. l The above findings, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference are hereby adopted.
Section 2. The Metro Plan Diagram land use designation for the property identified
as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900, referred to as the State Motor Pool site, is amended from
High Density ResidentialIMixed UseINodal Development designation to CommerciallNodal
Development designation as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated' herein by
this reference.
Section 3. The zoning for the property identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900,
referred to as the Oregon Motor Pool site, is rezoned from 1-2/TD, Light-Medium Industrial with
Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with
Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones, as depicted on Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. If a~y section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Passed by the City Council this
Approved by the Mayor this
Ordinance - 2
_ day of November, 2006
_ day of November, 2006
City Recorder
Mayor
Ordinance - 3
EXHIBIT A
Attachment A
Staff Findings
(Revised October 16, 2006)
Oregon State Motor Pool Site (MA 06-2, Z 06-9)
Metro Plan Diae:ram Amendments
The proposed amendment would change the current Metro Plan land use designation of High Density
Residential/ Mixed UselNodal Development to CommerciallNodal Development. The High Density
Residential designation is intended for multi-unit developments of typically over 20 units per acre.
The Mixed Use designation is typically applied within a designated Special Area Plan, however, the
subject parcel is not located within a Special Area. There is no corresponding zoning that implements
this designation. The Nodal Development designation has been applied to all the downtown area to
recognize Eugene's central business district as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center, pursuant to
OAR 660-012-0060(7).
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria be applied to a Metro Plan diagram
amendment:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
As discussed below, after review of additional materials submitted by the applicant, staff finds that the
Metro Plan diagram amendment criteria in both EC 9.7730(3)(a) and (b)are satisfied by the proposal.
Staff findings relative to the amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3) (with criteria in bold italics) are
presented below.
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
The applicant states that at the time of adoption of the Downtown ~lan that "Goal findings were made
on all applicable Statewide Goals and the Downtown Plan, including the specific policies that called
for redesignation of particular parcels..." and that, therefore, "the direction of the Downtown Plan with
regard to this parcel is not conditional upon any additional findings of need or land use inventory
considerations" (applicant's letter to City of Eugene June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the
applicant's conclusion that Statewide Goal findip.gs have already been made supporting the specific
proposed Plan amendment. Below are staff findings relative to the proposal's consistency with all
Statewide Goals.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
In its land use code, the City has State-acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and that set out
requirem~nts for such involvement. The proposed action does not amend these citizen involvement
provisions. The process for reviewing the proposed amendment complies with Goal 1 since it complies
with, and surpasses the requirements of, the State-acknowledged citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of the
amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on September 19,
2006. On August 3, 2006, the City mailed notice of the proposed plan amendments and zone change
to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by the Eugene Code and in
accordance with State statutes. Referral comments were requested on June 27, 2006, after the initial
application and on August 2, 2006, after supplemental materials were received. Referrals were sent to
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Springfield, Lane County, the Downtown
Neighbors Association and to City departments, consistent with the Eugene Code. On August 18,
2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and owners and
occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property, the Downtown Neighborhood
Association, and other interested parties who requested notice, in accordance with the Eugene Code.
On August 30, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register-
Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On August 17, 2006, notice was also posted in
accordance with EC 9.7415(5). In addition to public meetings and mailed notices, printed materials
related to these proceedings were made available to the public at Planning and Development
Department offices. An additional public hearing before the Eugene City Council will be scheduled
following Planning Commission action. Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for
that hearing.
The process for adopting this amendment is consistent with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequatefactual base for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a
basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in
compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record show that there is an adequate
factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans
be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for
review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City coordinated the review of the proposed amendments with all affected
governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, and the City of Springfield. There
are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth
12A2006
''>
k:
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the ,subject property is entirely within its
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendment does not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject parcel and actions do not affect any forest
plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries; therefore it does not
apply to the subject property, which is within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4
is not relevant and the amendment does no~ affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal
4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces" Scenic and Historic Areas" and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and
protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250 does not require local governments to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a post
acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. The subject
property does not include any Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendment does not create or
amend a list of Goal 5 resources, does not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a
significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, and does not amend the
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Goal 6 - Air" Water and Land Resources Ouality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water
and land from impacts from those discharges. Nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or
potential ,uses indicates a future development that would compromise air, water and land resources.
The proposal does not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource policies.
Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis
and wildfires. The subject property is relatively flat in the midst of an urban area, and is not located
within known areas of natural disasters or hazards. The subject property is outside the FEMA flood
zone and is not subject to hazards normally associated with steep slopes, wildfires, 'or tsunamis. 'Other
hazards, such as earthquakes and severe winter storms can be mitigated at the time of development
based on accepted building codes and building techniques. Therefore, this amendment is consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. There are no public or private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the State Motor Pool site. Therefore, the' proposed amendment
will not impact the provision of recreational facilities, nor will it affect access to existing or future
recreational facilities. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety
of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The proposed Plan designation for the subject 1.7 -acre parcel is Commercial. The Administrative Rule
for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and
demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The 1992 Eugene
Commercial Lands Study is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. As discussed below, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Eugene
Commercial Lands Study. It will have little real effect on the supply of commercial land. The
proposed amendment would change the property's plan designation from one that supports limited
_ commercial use (High Density Residential/Mixed Use) to another that supports a wider range of
commercial uses (Commercial). Both designations would also allow high density residential
const~uction. The additional designation of Nodal Development, which does not change the base zone
or densities, would not change. As a result, the potential change in the level of commercial use on this
1.7 acre parcel would have a relatively insignificant impact on the total supply-of commercial land.
The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study (1991) addresses the industrial land supply. The
subject site was not part of the indt;lstriallands inventory; Le., it was not counted as a potential site for
future industrial development or as needed to satisfy-the city's 20-year industrial land supply. Lands
considered available for industrial uses are typically those which have an Industrial plan designation.
The subject parcel does not currently have an Industrial designation (but has an 1-2 zoning). Therefore,
the proposed plan amendment (residential to commercial) would have no effect on the supply of
available industrial land as predicted by the Industrial Lands Special Study.
The Eugene Commercial Lands Study contains several policies applicable to the proposed amendment.
The applicant concludes that that Policies 2.0, 8.0, 17.0 and implementation strategies 17.1 and 17.3
apply (applicant's letter to City July 24, 2006). While the proposal is not inconsistent with those
policies, staff does not agree that those policies apply. However, a number of policies in the Study do
support a Commercial designation of the subject parcel. Applicable policies are discussed below.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6)
The proposed amendment to Commercial would not actively further the reuse and
intensification of existing commercial sites, as it opens up a new site to commercial
development. However, to the extent that the amendment maintains compact urban
development in the downtown core, as anticipated in the Downtown Plan, the proposal is not
inconsistent with this policy. The amendment may encourage reuse of a parking lot (a low
intensity "industrial" use) into a more compact urban uses, such as retail, commercial, housing,
or a combination of these uses.
r~ ()()! ,~
12~2006
.:'1
Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community commercial areas rather
than additional major retail centers. (Policy 11)
The proposed amendment would encourage centralized commercial development in the
downtown area rather than in outlying major retail centers, and could promote the development
of other commercial areas downtown, such as the adjacent 5th Street Market. On its own, the
subject site, at 1.7 acres, is not large enough to support an "additional major retail center."
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the rest
of the city. (Policy 12)
The subject parcel is located in the downtown core, an area that both the Metro Plan and
Downtown Plan refinement plan envision as an area of compact, high density commercial and
residential development. The proposed amendment furthers this policy.
Eugene Downtown Plan policies also support a CommerciallNodal Development Designation for the
subject parcel (see findings under criterion (3)(b) below for further discussion of applicable Downtown
Plan policies. Specifically, Policy 2 in "Building a Downtown" states:
Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties,
such as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such
as C-2 or C-3. (Policy 2)
The existing parking lot is arguably an underutilized area. In addition, the Eugene Downtown
Plan identifies the. subject property as a "Downtown Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
Approval of a-plan amendment to CommerciallNodal Development is supported by the policies in the
Eugene Commercial Lands Study and the Downtown Plan. Based on the above discussion, the
amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. -
Goal 10 ~ Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. .
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for
needed housing units. The property ~ffected by the proposed amendments was not included in the
supply of land available for residential development, as documented in the adopted 1999 Residential
Lands and Housing Study (Ordinance No. 20159,1999). That study excluded from consideration as
"buildable land" vacant land that was owned by a public agency and not intended for residential
development. The subject property has been in the ownership of the State of Oregon since 1980,
according to the applicant. Therefore, changing the land use designation from residential uses will not
affect the adopted residential lands inventory.
Based on fact that the amendment would have no effect on the adopted residential land supply, the
proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
The area affected by the amendments has long been located inside the city limits (annexed between
1864 and 1900). Adequate access to the City's stormwater system, public wastewater lines, water and
power are available to the site. The existing level of public facilities and service is adequate to serve
the needs of existing and future development. The provision of this amendment does not affect the
planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore, the amendment is consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
As discussed below, based on additional transportation information submitted by the applicant, staff
finds that the proposal is consistent with Statewide Goal 12.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The TPR states that when land use changes, including
amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect transportation facilities,
measures must be put in place to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function and
capacity of those transportation facilities. Several streets border the site affected by the proposed
amendments. Those streets are: Pearl Street, High Street, and 4th Avenue. On the south is the
Southern Pacific RR right of way. Pearl and High streets are classified as Major Collectors on the
City of Eugene Street Classification Map, adopted in 1999. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. Implementation of transportation system improvements specific to the
downtown area are accomplished through the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
A determination of potential impacts on local transportation facilities is a prerequisite to approval of
the proposed amendment from High Density Residential to Commercial. Pursuant to OAR 660-012-
0060( 1), the. State TPR requires a determination of which transportation facilities will experience a
"significant effect" as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what constitutes a
significant effect. A plan amendment is considered to significantly affect a transportation facility if,
for example, the amendment will reduce the performance of the transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard (often described in terms of Level of Service standards or
vehicle/capacity ratios). If a local government determines that an amendment would' significantly
affect a transportation facility, the local government must put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified "function, capacity and performance standards" of
the facility ((OAR 660-012-0060(1)). An example of such a measure is a minor street improvement.
OAR 660-012-0060(3) describes additional circumstances under which the City could approve the
amendment, including instances in which the applicant demonstrates that the existing transportation
facility is already performing below minimum acceptable performance standards and that the
development resulting from the proposed amendment mitigates the impacts in a manner that avoids
further degradation of the transportation facility.
The applicant maintains that additional transportation information is not needed to demonstrate
compliance with Statewide Goal 12 (applicant's letter to City dated October 10, 2006, pg. 2), because
the proposal complies with Goal 12 based on: 1) earlier Council findings for the Downtown Plan
adoption; 2) the Nodal Development/Transit Oriented Development zoning of the area; and 3) the
Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
1) The applicant argues that the 2004 City Council findings related to the adoption of the
Downtown Plan are sufficient to demonstrate Goal 12 compliance for the current proposal
(applicant's letter to City dated June 8, 2006). The applicant argues that, since the Downtown
t 2. 20(J6
6
Plan contains a policy that specifically directs redesignation of the subject parcel, the same
findings made for all Downtown Plan policies can be transferred to this current redesignation
action. Staff does not concur with this argument.
The Downtown Plan has no land use diagram, and no redesignations or rezones were approved
concurrent with the Downtown Plan adoption. The Plan policy in question is: "Facilitate
downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as
surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2
or C-3" (Policy 2). Contrary to what the applicant suggests, this policy is not parcel-specific. ; It
applies to a number of unspecified properties downtown that are "underutilized," some of which
may also be surface parking lots at any given time. While this policy does apply to the subject
parcel, it did not have the effect of redesignating. the site. It is a general policy directing that
underutilized properties downtown should be redesignated, but does not itself redesignate those
properties.
The applicant notes that the Council findings for the Downtown Plan stated that "No change in
the functional classification of these streets is intended to result from this Plan..." and that "the
Plan does not, by its adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would result in
inconsistencies with the functional classification ofa transportation facility..." (applicant's letter
to City July 24, 2006). However, those earlier findings do not obviate the requirement for the
current proposal to comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), which requires a determination of
"significant effects" ort transportation facilities as a result of the current proposed plan
amendment. A change from a High Density Residential designation to a Commercial designation
can result in allowable uses that would increase the potential number of vehicle trips, with
potentially significant effects on transportation facilities. Although general Downtown Plan
policies were acknowledged as consistent with Statewide goals, that acknowledgement is
insufficient to conclude that the redesignation of a specific parcel without further analysis is
consistent with Statewide goals. Staff does not agree that 2004 Downtown Plan findings are
sufficient for the current proposal, and finds that additional information is needed to demonstrate
the proposal's consistency with Statewide Goal 12.
2) Although the subject parcel is within a Nodal Development area and Transit Oriented
Development overlay zone, and future development will meet the multi-modal goals of these
designations (applicant's revised findings August 21,2006), having those designations in itself is
not sufficient evidence that the land use change will have no significant effect on transportation
facilities.
3 ) CATS, an implementation plan, identifies future transit routes and contains policies that promote
an improved pedestrian system (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006). However, these
strategies are not specific to the proposed amendment, and CATS does not evaluate whether the
allowable uses on the site would have a significant effect on a transportation facility, nor does it
identify specific measures that would mitigate identified impacts stemming from a plan
amendment pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1).
To meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060 it is necessary to evaluate the proposed amendment
relative to criteria outlined in the TPR used to determine "significant effect." According to City of
Eugene Public Works Engineering, this requires data such as trip generation, trip distribution and
assignment (or similar data, depending on uses, traffic patterns, surrounding streets, etc., that describes
existing and anticipated traffic levels) and comparative analysis of each of these under existing plan
designation(s) and proposed plan designation(s). Empirical data on a wide range of land uses is
available from the Trip Generation report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
which is the industry standard utilized nationwide to determine traffic impacts of development. Once
the local government has determined "significant effect," there are a number of remedies for
applications that to enable plan amendments to comply with the TPR.
The applicant's original application materials were revised with additional transportation data
(submitted on October 10, 2006). The data submitted includes trip generation estimates for allowable
uses under the existing HDR designation and for allowable uses under the proposed Commercial
designation. These estimates assume the following: that allowable uses under a HDR designation
would be ground floor retail with 2 additional floors of residential uses; that allowable uses under a
Commercial designation would be ground floor retail with an additional floor of office; and that up to
one-half of the parcel area could be covered in structures (with remaining area absorbed by parking,
circulation, landscaping, etc.). Staff concurs that these are reasonable assumptions based on the site,
current market conditions, and typical zoning requirements. The applicant's trip generation analysis
estimates that less than 200 additional weekday trips would be generated by a change from a HDR to a
Commercial designation, and approximately 36 additional weekday peak hour trips would be
generated under proposed designations. Based on City engineering staffs knowledge of existing traffic
volumes and existing roadway capacity, surrounding streets are currently operating at between LOS A
and LOS C. Given the traffic volumes anticipated in the applicant's trip generation analysis, staff
believes that the proposed designations will not result in a significant impact on the function, capacity
or performance standards of these transportation facilities. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed
change complies with the State TPR Statewide Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The proposed plan amendment does not specifically impact energy conservation. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transitionfrom rural to urban land
use.
The amendment does not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
already within the City limits. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway., Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
12.20fJ6
8
Goals 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources" Coastal Shorelands" Beaches and Dunes" and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property effected by
these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendment will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment ~ust not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 1.7 acres of land from High Density
Residential/Mixed UseINodal Development to CommerciallNodal Development will not create an
internal conflictwith the remainder of the Metro Plan. No text or other diagram changes are necessary
to ensure internal consistency with the proposed diagram amendments; adoption of this amendment
will not make the Metro Plan internally consistent.
Consistency with Metro Plan policies:
The applicant concludes that" ...findings were made at the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan.
The change of the Metro Plan map, when that change is only to make it conform with the text of the
adopted refinement plan, and now the Metro Plan, should not require new findings of Metro Plan
consistency" (applicant's letter to City June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the applicant's
conclusion. That the refinement pl~n was earlier found to be consistent with the Metro Plan is not
sufficient evidence that the specific plan amendment proposed is consistent with the Metro Plan. Staff
presents findings below as evidence that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent
with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. The following Metro Plan polices are applicable
to the requ~sted amendment:
Residential Land Use and Housing Element:
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in
proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. (Policy A.II)
Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities. (Policy A.19)
The current Metro Plan designation of the parcel is High Density Residential/Mixed UseINodal
Development. The Metro Plan also contains the following cautionary statement related to the
residential land supply: "While all medium and high density allocations shown on the Metro Plan
Diagram may not be needed during the planning period, there protection for these uses is important
because available sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited" (pg. II-G-3). However, the
proposed amendment has been found to have no actual effect on the buildable residential land supply
(as noted in findings for Goal 10 under EC 9.7730(3)(b) above). In addition, the proposed designation
of CommerciallNodal Development would accommodate both multi-unit residential and commercial
uses.
The applicant claims that a High Density Residential designation is not appropriate for the subject
parcel. This is due to the fact that:
1) The parcel is surrounded by commercial, industrial and office uses (applicant's letter to City July
24, 2006 pg. 5). Staff does not agree that this makes the site unsuitable for High Density
Residential Uses, which are anticipated in the Downtown Plan and often located within compact
commercial centers and next to office uses. The site is also proximate to other housing, parks,
and other amenities for residents.
2) The applicant states that the parcel is also not suited for residential uses due to the parcel's
configuration. The parcel is only 130 feet deep on the west (Pearl Street) side, with the longest
boundary along the railroad (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). It is not clear how this
configuration makes the site difficult to develop in high density housing. The site is substantially
larger than that &ccommodating the TATE Condominiums on Olive Street or the Aurora Housing
building at 11 th Avenue and Oak, for examples.
3) The case is made that the subject parcel is unlikely to develop into high density housing due to its
location adjacent to the railroad tracks (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). Noise and
vibration from the rail use would conflict with residential use. The application materials also
state that affordable housing would be the most likely high density residential use for such a site
and, as such, it would not qualify under HUD rules since the noise levels would be deemed
unacceptable for residences (State of Oregon letter July 16, 2003 submitted as background). In
addition, the applicant concludes that the corresponding high density residential zoning (R-3 or
R-4), which would require the development of 30 units on the site and on-site parking, would be
difficult for that site. Under the Eugene land use code, a high density residential designation
would typically require minimum densities of20-30 unit/acre (however, on-site parking would
not be required by the land use c<?de, as the. parcel is located in a Parking Exempt Area (Map
9.641 O( 4)(a)). Staff concurs that noise mitigation for residential development in such a location
could be costly, particularly the per/unit cost for lower densities. The applicant states that the
only commercial development that would be allowed under R-3 or R-4 zoning is neighborhood
commercial (C-l) development, which would not be financially feasible (written statement April
13,2006 pg. 3). Under the land use code, R-3 or R-4 zoning allows limited, typically C-1-style
development. A Commercial designation with commercial zoning would allow a much wider
range of commercial uses. .
Whether or not it is likely that the subject parcel would be redeveloped to High Density Residential
uses, or how financially feasible it is to do so is not made clear the application. Nonetheless, a diagram
change to a CommerciallNodal Development designation is not inconsistent with Metro Plan policies
related to residential land use.
Economic Element:
Increase the amount of undeveloped land zonedfor light industrial and commercial uses correlating
the effective supply in terms or suitability and availability with the projects of demand. (Policy B.6)
The subject parcel, a small City of Eugene-owned parking area to the northwest, and the EWEB
property immediately east of the site are the only sites zoned LIght Medium Industrial (1-2) in this area.
None of these are in active industrial use. On the north and west side, adjacent properties are in office
use. The 5th Street Market commercial area is to the south. Given these adjacent uses and zoning, it is
more likely that there will be a demand for commercial uses, rather than industrial uses, on these
properties.
f) Of) I n.
L2 ^ 2006
l. ()
Consistency with applicable refinement plan:
The proposed amendment is also internally consistent to the extent that it is consistent with applicable
refinement plans. Policies in the Downtown Plan encourage both high density residential and
commercial development in the downtown area, as noted in the staff findings related to Zone Change
criterion 9.8865(2) (discussed below). A change to a Commercial designation for this parcel would
accqmmodate both commercial and residential uses, and would be internally consistent with the Metro
Plan and its refinement plan policies.
Zo'ne Chanee
The proposed zone change is ,from Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development
, overlay zone ( 1-2/TD) to Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone
and Nodal Development overlay zone (C-2/TDIND). The proposed zoning of C-2 allows
neighborhood commercial development, community commercial development and residential
development (no minimum or maximum densities spe~ified).
Eugene Code Section 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a
Zone Change.
(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The
written text of the Metro Plan shall take p~ecedence over the Metro Plan diagram
where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Approval of the zone change fs dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment from
High Density Residential/Mixed UseINodal Development to a designation of CommerciallNodal
Development. The findings related to consistency with the Metro Plan under EC 9.7730(3)(b) above,
are incorporated herein by reference.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable 'adopted refinement plans. In
the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan. the Metro Plan
controls.
The applicable refinement plan is the Eugene Downtown.Plan (adopted April 2004). The Downtown
Plan does not provide a land use diagram, instead relying on the Metro Plan diagram. Therefore, the
land use designations between the two plans are consistent. The following policies from the Eugene
Downtown Plan are applicable to this amendment:
"Strong Regional Center" policies:
Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment. (Policy 2)
Existing use of the subject property is low density surface parking, which does not have the
qualities of density, vitality, etc. envisioned for the downtown area. The proposed change from
Industrial (1-2) to Commercial (C2) could promote redevelopment with these characteristics. In
addition, the Eugene Downtown Plan identifies the subject property as a "Downtown
Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
"Building a Downtown" policies:
Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties,
such as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such
, as C-2 or C-3. (Policy 2)
The proposed zone change furthers this policy direction. Currently, the property is a surface
parking lot zoned Industrial (1-2). It is the type of "underutilized" downtown property that this
policy was specifically crafted to address. A zone change to Commercial (C-2) would support
implementation of this policy.
"Living Downtown" policies:
Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety
of income levels and ownership opportunities. (Policy 1)
The current industrial zoning of the site does not allow multi-unit housing. A zone change
from Industrial (1-2) to Commercial (C2) makes multi-unit housing possible at this site,
furthering this policy goal. The parcel is included in the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption
Area Boundary (MUPTE) and in the Vertical Housing Tax Exemption Zone Area (Map 2),
where development qualifies for incentives for high density housing downtown.
Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the commercial core to help contain
commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of adjacent
neighborhoods. (Policy 2)
The proposed zone change would have a neutral to positive effect on neighborhoods abutting
the commercial core. In making additional land available downtown for higher density
development, the proposal promotes the containment of higher density housing and commercial
uses to the downtown area, preserving surrounding neighborhoods. In doing so, the zone
change would be consistent with this policy.
The policies in the Downtown Plan arguably support both high density residential and commercial
development of the subject parcel. However, wJ;1ile residential uses on this site would be supported by
the Plan, there is strong policy basis for a commercial designation, as noted in B-D Policy 2:
"Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as
surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2 or C-
3. " A C-2 zone does not mandate residential development, but allows a mix of commercial and
residential development. Based on the above.discussion, staff finds that the proposed zone change to
C-2/ND is consistent with the policies in the Downtown Plan. Further, the zone change will not
remove the Transit Oriented Development overlay zone from the subject property, and will add the
Nodal Development overlay zone anticipated in the 2004 adoption of the Downtown Plan, all actions
that support the compact, mixed use land patterns envisioned in the Downtown Plan.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities
and services.
The following key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, are currently available to
the subject property, or can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner to serve future
development: wastewater service, stormwater service, water service, fire and emergency medical
services, police protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls,
communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. Details related to
p()() I ,'^
12^2006
1. 2 of ] -3
how/when/where those facilities and services are provided remain to be resolved in the context of any
future development proposal.
In. regards to transportation, the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a) under Statewide Planning Goals 12,
above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set
outfor the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
For this proposed zone change, there are no applicable siting requirements as referenced in the above
criterion. The commercial zone siting requirements at EC 9.2150 only affect properties proposed for
C-I or C-4 zoning. 'There are no siting requirements in the Eugene Code for the Nodal
Development/ND overlay zone.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.25] 0(3), the property owner
shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the city tq ensure the area is
maintained as a natural resource areafor a minimum of 50 years.
The above criterion is not applicable, as the proposed zone change does not include application of the
NR zone.
Area to be redesignated from
High Density ResidentiallMixed .. UselNodalDevelopment Designation
to CommerciaJINodalDevelopmentDesignation
f-
en
....J
0::
<(
w
a.
Area to be. rezoned from
1-2 ZonelTDOverlay Zone
toC-2ZonelTDOverlay . ZonelNodalOevelopmentOverlayZone
5TH AVE
.....,
EXHIBIT B
N
+
6TH AVE
f-
en
....J
0::
d'
Oregon State Motor Pool Site
Metro Plan Redesignation and Zone Change
3RD
IT]
4TH AVE
t-
en
:I:
(!)
J:
n
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium-99 West 1 Oth Avenue
October 30, 2006
11 :30 a.m.
Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5452
Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike
Sullivan, ex officio; Lisa Gardner, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Jim
Spickerman, guest.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan,
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
I. PLANNING COMMISSION
MOTOR POOL SITE
moved that the Planning
the City Council approve both the
(MA 06-2) and the Zone Change (Z 06-
unanimously, 5:0.
II.
August 30, and September 19,2006
seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to adopt the
of July 25, August 30, and September 19, as amended.
motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III.
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 30, 2006
Page 1
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium-99 West 1 Oth Avenue
October 30, 2006
11 :30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike
Sullivan, ex officio; Lisa Gardner, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and
Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Jim
Spickerman, guest.
ABSENT:
Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan,
due to a scheduling conflict
Mr. Lawless convened the meeting. He stated that Agenda
Deliberation! Action: State of Oregon Motor Pool Site
agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA
There was no one wishing to address the
Mr. Belcher announced he would
of a Christmas tree map deadline.
I.
PLAN~~~Cl'Q~lllfJN
MO:JfJR POOL SITE
STATE OF OREGON
Ms. ~~,~III:II~er offered a brief s.ry of the Planning Commission's actions to date regarding
the ~en(Jl't'_.:i~~ iterated in the ~,.da Item Summary (AIS). She concluded, stating that
based on the.R~tion and mat~IJls in the record, new materials related to Goal 12,
Transportation'~"I.f~ed into t~~!record on October 10, 2005, and the staff findings attached to
the AIS, staff founq"'1'rtre ~~~'bsal complied with all approval criteria in Eugene Code (Ee)
9.7730(3), and with rJl"I~I~S5, and recommended a favorable recommendation to the City
Council of the proposedl;JlIgene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
amendment and zone qllange. She stated that a public hearing before the City Council was
scheduled for November 20, 2006.
In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Siegenthaler stated that the afternoon peak hour trip generations
reflected the worst case scenario, adding that the greatest load was on the streets. Ms. Gardner
added there was a greater stagger in the afternoon.
Responding to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Siegenthaler said the current peak afternoon trip generation was
approximately 119 vehicles, and was expected to increase to 155 vehicles.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve both the
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 30, 2006
Page 1
Metro Plan Amendment (MA 06-2) and the Zone Change (Z 06-
9). The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Lawless reiterated there was no one wishing to make public comment.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 25, August 30, and September 19, 2006
July 25, 2006
Page 12: Mr. Carroll questioned the accuracy of his statement on page 12.
Mr. Hledik stated although he had been
essence, had been a continuation of the July 25,
He asked that the record reflect he had been in
recused.
Page 12 paragraph 4, sentence 1 should read:
Mr. Belcher offered the following correction:
Mr. Belcher stated if there was real concern over
minimum standards setbacks wetikl should not be
the
August 30, 2006
meeting, which in
he had been recused.
30 meeting, and had been
September 19, 2006-Study
No corrections.
copies of Eugene Code 9.9640 (South Willamette
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan,
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to adopt the
minutes of July 25, August 30, and S~ptember 19, as amended.
The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Gardner said that the City Council reappointed Rick Duncan to the Planning Commission,
and had appointed two new commissioners, Ann Kneeland and Anthony McCown. She added
staff would schedule an orientation session at a future Planning Commission meeting.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 30, 2006
Page 2
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Belcher said he recently attended a presentation on mass transit by Ms. Peticia that had been
very informative. A brief discussion about mass transit applications in Eugene followed.
In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Sullivan displayed a map of potential West
Broadway development sites. He explained the process that would be used in the purchase option
and various funding and disposition options available.
Mr. Belcher said he wanted to have a discussion on Planning Commission bylaws and election of
offi~ers before a new president and vice president were selected.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m: \2006\planning and development department\planning
Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
October 30, 2006
Page 3 .
ATTACHMENT C
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
October 30, 2006
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
FROM:
Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Deliberations on State of Oregon Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (MA 06-2 and Z 06-9)
ACTION REQUESTED: Review new information submitted, continue deliberation on, and make
recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) amendment and zone change.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On September 19,2006, the Eugene Planning Com"mission held a public
hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan and approve a concurrent zone change for the following:
File name: Oregon Motor Pool Site
Property location: 445 Pearl Street, Tax Lot #1703304408900
Applicant/owner: State of Oregon Administrative Services
Owner's representative: Jim Spickerman of Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott LLP
The applicant requests approval of the following:
1. Metro Plan Amendment (MA 06-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram for the subject
property from a designation of High Density ResidentiaVMixed UselNodal Development to a
designation of CommerciallNodal Development.
2. Zone Change (Z 06-9) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning ofI-2rrD, Light-
Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, to C-2rrDIND Community
Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development overlay zones.
BACKGROUND:
Purpose of Staff Report
The Eugene Code requires City staff to prepare a written report, prior to the public hearing, for the
Planning Commission's consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment or zone change request.
The staff report, is attached as Attachment A, Staff Findings, revised October 16, 2006 in response to
additional data submitted by the applicant. Following the close of the public hearing record, the Planning
Commission will make a recommendation, based on the required approval criteria, to the City Council to
approve, approve with modifications or deny the applications. The requests will be heard before the City
Council in a separate public hearing, following action by the Planning Commission. The quasi-judicial
hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
The property subject to this request is the State of Oregon Motor Pool site, located at the southeast comer
of Pearl Street and 4th Avenue. It is approximately 1.71 acres in size. The property is currently being
used as surface parking for State motor pool vehicles. On April 21, 2006, the owner's representative
submitted applications to the City of Eugene for amendments to the Metro Plan as well as a concurrent
rezoning. Following the receipt of the City's completeness review comments, the applicant provided
supplemental materials on June 8, 2006. On July 14, 2006, the City requested additional information
related to compliance with Statewide Goal 12, Transportation, and potential transportation impacts. On
July 24 and August 21, 2006, the applicant submitted additional revised findings for Goal 12. On July 28,
2006, the application was deemed complete without the additional requested information, at the
applicant's request.
The applicant's original submittal did not provide specific data related to the potential impacts of the
proposed plan amendments on transportation facilities. Staff concluded in its September 12, 2006
Findings that there was insufficient information in the submittal to demonstrate compliance with Goal 12,
which requires that the allowed land uses under the proposed designation be consistent with the identified
function, capacity and performance standards of existing and planned transportation facilities. At the
Planning Commission public hearing on September 19, 2006, there was a majority agreement amongst .
Commissioners that basic traffic data would be needed to demonstrate compliance with Goal 12. As
requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant submitted trip generation estimates on October 10,
2006.
As detailed in the attached staff report, referrals were provided to the appropriate agencies, and notice of
the public hearing was mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements (described further in
Attachment A, Findings). No letters of public testimony were received between the date of public notice
(August 18, 2006) and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on September 19, 2006.
There was no public testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing, and no additional public
testimony was submitted while the record remained open (until October 10, 2006).
Applicable Criteria
The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria from sections 9.7730(3)
and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code (EC) in making recommendations to the Eugene City Council on the
proposals, as listed below.
EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment.
The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan
amendment applic,ation:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment. must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
EC 9.8865 Zone Chane:e Approval Criteria.
Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be
approved unless it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written
text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent
conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the
event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and
services.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for
the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter
into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural
resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
Findings addressing the required approval criteria have been prepared by staff and are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information and materials in the record, new materials related to
Goal 12, Transportation, submitted into the record on October 10, 2006, and the attached staff findings,
staff finds that the proposal complies with all approval criteria in EC 9.7730(3) and with EC 9.8865, and
recommends a favorable recommendation to the City Council of the proposed Metro Plan amendment and
zone change.
ATTACHMENTS: It was not feasible to reprint all of the written materials, attachments, and other
items included in the file record for this application as part of the attachments to the Staff Findings. The
other materials listed below are only available for review at the Planning Division. Copies of the
materials found in the file record for this application can be provided upon request for a fee. The
Planning Commission will be provided a full set of the applicant's materials and all public testimony (if
any) for review.
Attachment A. Staff Findings, revised October 16, 2006
Attachment B. Applicant's Post Hea~ing Submittal, dated October 10, 2006, including letter from the
applicant and trip generation analysis by Lancaster Engineering dated October 6, 2006
Attachment C. Memo from Gary McNeel, City of Eugene Public Works Engineering, dated October 16,
2006, with response to applicant's post-hearing submittal.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by phone at 541-682-5452 or via email atann.siegenthaler@cLeugene.or.us.
HAND DELIVERED
ATTACHMENT D
RECE!\!ED
October 10, 2006
r-. .~-.'-_._'''~---~. .~
\ OCT 1 0 2006
I
l L__.,."...,_,*~...._,.__,.__....._'.n~'..'..-.
(~ ! '"('{ C) F E LJ'C:f: E i;~ .: E
_ftj~~~i~:~..~~,,~7~~_,.".~:i~!:'i 'Tjyl E f\JI-
Planning Commission
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Post Hearing Submittal
Oregon Motor Pool Site (MA 06-2 and Z 06-9)
Dear Commissioners:
The record herein remained open at .my request so that I could provide
further comment in response to the dialog that ensued between staff
and Commissioners following my presentation and to allow an
opportunity for me to submit a trip generation analysis similar to that
submitted by the City in support of redesignation of 9+ acres of
Industrial property to Commercial at the courthouse site.
A. Policy at Issue
The Downtown Plan contains the following discussion and Policy at
Chapter II of the Plan, entitled "Building a Downtown," in the section
entitled "Facilitating Development":
"... All zoning regulations for downtown should be
reviewed to look for ways to simplify and expedite
development downtowh. In addition, there are underused
and vacant sites throughout downtown. Some of these
parcels are not designated for commercial use in the Metro
Plan, or are designated commercial but not commercially
zoned. These sites, which include surface parking lots
downtown, need to be redesignated or rezoned to allow for
the commercial development envisioned in this plan." (p.
13)
Consistent with this statement, the Plan adopts as a Policy the
following:
"3. Facilitate downtown development by re-designating
and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface
Phone:
(541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
974V1-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-1147
Email:
info@orbuslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.orbuslaw.com
Sean M. Bannon
Frederick A. Batson
Jon v. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
A. J, Giustina
Thomas P. E. Hernnann*
Dan Webb Howard
Stephen 0 . Lane
William H. Martin*
Laura T. Z. Montgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Ian T. Richardson
Martha J. Rodman
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W. Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson
Jane M. Yates
* Also admitted
in Washington
Planning Commission
October 10, 2006
Page 2
parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a
commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3." (p. 14)
The staff report indicated that there is "strong policy basis for.a
commercial designation" and Mr. Yeiter confirmed that the Motor Pool
site parking lot and the Depot parking lot were properties
contemplated by this particular policy.
The applicant's position simply is that, when the Downtown Plan was
.adopted, this policy was adopted and Statewide Goal findings,
including findings on Goal 12, were made establishing the plan was
consistent with those Statewide Goals. The findings of the City
Council in adopting the Downtown Plan cited Transportation Planning
Rule OAR 660-0 12-0060(2)(a)-(d) and stated:
"The Downtown Plan and related code amendments will
not significantly affect a transportation facility since they
do none of the things described in (a)-(d), above.
Four streets are proposed to be characterized as 'Great
Streets': Broadway,.Willamette, Fifth Avenue and Eighth
Avenue. 'The plan proposes that design standards and
guidelines be drafted for each street to emphasize
pedestrian amenities, and to attract pedestrian friendly
development, in an effort to create a 'walkable' downtown.
No change in the functional classification of these streets
is intended to result from this Plan. In addition, no
changes are proposed to the standards that implement the
functional classification system. The Plan does not, by its
adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would
result in inconsistencies with the functional classification
of a transportation facility, or reduce the performance
standards of the facility.
Therefore, the proposed refineme.nt plan adoption is
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12."
The September 19, 2006 dialog between the Commission and the staff
proceeded from the discussion of this particular site to concerns that
all the "Dozen Downtown Development Areas" set forth of page 45 of
the Eugene Downtown Plan might then be argued to be eligible for
redesignation to Commercial without any traffic impact analysis. One
Planning Commission
October 10, 2006
Page 3
site mentioned in particular was the Eugene Hospital and Clinic site.
What I did not have the opportunity to say then and wish to point out
now is that all of those "Development Opportunity Areas" are presently
Plan designated Commercial with the exception, of course, of this site,
the Depot parking lots, and the Midgely's block, Opportunity Area 4.
Although I have provided the traffic analysis the staff has insisted
upon, I maintain that the Downtown Plan and the particular policy at
issue both mean what they say. The Downtown Plan was intended to
facilitate development in the downtown area by dealing
comprehensively with the entire area and found that these
"underutilized sites" should be redesignated and rezoned to
Commercial. Adoption of the policy as part of the plan was reasonable
given the nature of the area including transit systems, the /TD overlay
zone, the /ND overlay zone and the concept of "great streets,"
including 5th Avenue.. This is a pedestrian transit oriented area.
B. Trip Generation Analysis
The staff had requested extensive data including:
"... trip generation, trip distribution and assignment,
existing levels and patterns of traffic / travel to and from
the site and the level of service of each nearby (upstream
or downstream) intersection, existing and planned
access(es) and comparative analysis of each of these under
existing plan designation(s) and proposed plan
designation(s)." (September 12, 2006, Staff Preliminary
Findings, p. 8.)
The Planning Commission was provided a copy of a June 18,2003
memorandum from Gary McNeel, PWE, entitled "Courthouse District
Trip Generation Estimates." A copy is attached as Exhibit A. From
this document, the City Council concluded in their findings on the
courthouse plan amendment:
"This analysis shows that the existing transportation
facilities are adequate to serve this amount of new
development on the remainder of the site with acceptable
levels of service... ."
Planning Commission
October 10, 2006.
Page 4
Attached as Exhibit B is a complete copy of the ~ouncil's findings on
Goal 12.
Following the September 19, 2006 discussion, it was specifically
determined by the Commission that a similar trip generation analysis
would suffice for this application to redesignate and rezone a 1.7 -acre
parcel. Attached as Exhibit C is the trip generation analysis of Tom R.
Lancaster, PE, of Lancaster Engineering. That analysis shows the
potential increase of 198 daily trips. It would seem that if the staff
and City Council could conclude in the courthouse redesignation that
an increase of 10,775 daily trips would not have a significant effect on
a transportation facility, it is reasonable to conclude that 198 trips 'will
not have that effect.
The staff has previously indicated positive findings on all other goals
and criteria. If, in spite of clear policy direction to redesignate and
rezone this parcel, further analysis is necessary, that has now been
provided and we ask that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Metro Plan amendment and zone change.
Jca
cc: Client (w / att)
Emily Jerome (w / att)
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Memorandum from Gary McNeel, June 18, 2003
City Council findings, Goal 12
Trip Generation Analysis, Tom Lancaster, October
6,2006
Exhibit A
..M::.,....>::.:.. ~::.:;~....:::....
::.::;. . H.:.;.;::::;:..''''::::;:PUbliC Works
\: ....:'...::;.;;;;(."T ransportation
...0 . . .
..... : .:~\- ... ..' :<::'<:.:~". ,
. .., ....... . '0' .0,
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
858 Pearl 8t 3rd Floor
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5218
(541) 682-5598 F I\)(
VNVW. ci. eugene.or .us/PW
Date: June 18, 2003
To: Nan Laurence, PDD
Fro;m: Gary McNeel, PWE
Subject: Courthouse. District Trip Generation Estimate~
Courthouse vicinity - Preliminary Trip Tables (assumed land use development pattern)
The planned comthouse is approximat~ly 260,000 sq. ft. on the 4.47 acre (194,713 sq. ft.) site.
The building is expected to house about i60-270 employees: There will be 80 parking spaces provided
(all reserved/secured parking)
Av~rage daily trip generation for ITE land use 730 (Government Office Building) for such a use would
be:
Average weekday 68.93 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. gfa, 50%. entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator 5.88 per 1,000 sq. ft. gfa, 84% enter, 16% exit
PM peak hour of generatc:'r 11.03 per 1,000 sq. ft. gfa, 74% enter, 26% exit
= 70,679 daily trips
= 1,764 AM awd trips
= 3,309 PM awd trips'
This yields a much higher number of 1rips than we surmise would be generated, and the square footage of
this building may not be the best unit of measurement. The other unit for ITE land use 730 is per
eniployees, which would be:
Average weekday 11.951rips per employee, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator 1.02 per employee, 84% enter, 16% exit
PM peak hour of generator 1.01 per employee, 74% enter, 26% exit
= 3,227 daily trips
= 275 AM awdtrips
= 516 PM awd trips
The lUlusual characteristics of the employees, clients, and customers oftbis building and its services may
not fit either of these typical methodologies and may not acconnt fo~ the jury assembly and selection
process, so we would anticipate the actual trip generation to be somewhat higher than the'per employee
computation yields. Lacking further empirical data, we must opt for the more reasonable of the two and
will utilize the hitter.
Subtracting the trip generation for the former uses of this portion of the property will yield a net
new trip total. Theformer Chiquita/Agripac site was zonedfor Heavy Industrial (ITE Land Use 120), but
those usesfoeus on manufacturing. The cannery use displays a trip.generation'pattern that much more
closely resembles those found in General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use 119), which would have been
expected to generate:
City Council Agenda page 183
Page 1 of5
Average weekday 51.80 trips per acre, 50% entering, ~O% exiting
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 7.51 per acre, 83 % enter, 17% exit
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 7.Z6 per acre, no directional split
= 232 daily trips
= 34 AM trips
= 32 PM trips
>:..
NET NEW TRIPS..... ................... = 2,995 daily trips
241 AM peak
= 484 PM peak
The ~emainder of the 9.05 acre site north-of 8th Avenue, less the 4.47 acres described above, less 0.40
acres for reconstructing Ferry Street (yields 4.18 acres or 182,080 sq. ft.), is currently zoned 1-3. If this
area were re-zoned to permit a greater mix of uses, it could provide about a 60,000 sq. ft. footprint (likely
~ two or three separate buildings) for ground floor commercial or services related use. A second story
could provide a slightly sma~ler qUantity (perhaps 50,000 sq. ft.) of office or residential uses above the
commercial/retail. The trip generation for such a parcel with those uses, would be anticipated to be:
Assuming a second floor on these two buildings would provide Gel;1eral Office Uses, 40,000 sq. feet of
ITE Land Use 710 (General Office Building) .
Average weekday 11.01 trip~ per 1,000 s.f. gfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM pea1chour of adj. 81. or generator, 1.56/kgfa, 88% entering, 12% exiting
PM peak hour of adj. St. or generator, 1.49/kgfa, 17% entering, 83% exiting'
Assuming the remaining 10,000 sq. ft. of second story use is residential, ITE Land Use 220 (Apartment),
about 15 dwelling tmits, ,
Average weekday 6.63 trips per dwelling unit, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, O.51/du, 16% entering, 84% exiting
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, O.62/du, 67% entering, 33% exiting
CommerciallRetail Ground floor uses:
Specialty Retail (ITE Land Use 814), 20,000 sq. ft. gla
Average weekday 40.671rips per 1,000 s.f. gla, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator, 6.41 per kgla, 48% entering, 52% exiting
PM peak hour of generator, 4.93 per kgla, 57% entering, 43% exiting
High-Turnover (sit-down) Restaurant (ITE L~d Use' 832), 10,000 sq. ft. gfa
,Average weekday 130.34 trips per 1,000 s.f. gfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting
, AM pe~ hour of adjacent street, 9.27/kgfa , 52% entering, 48% exiting
PM peak hout of.adjacent street, lO.86/kgfa, 60% entering, 40% exiting
Health Club CITE Land Use 493), 30,000 sq. it gfa
No computation shown for daily trip generation - estimated daily trips
AM peak hour of Adjacent street 1raffic, O.30/kgfa, 46% entering, 54% exiting
PM peak hour of Adjacent street 1raffic, 4.30/kgf~, 61 % entering, 39% exiting
= 813 daily trips
= 128 AM peak trips
= 99 PM peak trips
= 1,303 daily trips
= 93 AM peak trips '
= 109 PM peak trips
= 324 daily 1I?-ps
9 AM peak trips'
= 129 PM peak trips
= 440 daily trips'
62 AM peak ~p&
60 PM peak trips
=
=
=
99 ~y trips
4 AM 'peale trips
9 PM peak trips
=
=
So the total of projected trips would = 2,979 daily trips
= 296 AM trips
= 406 PM trips
City Council Agenda page 184
Page 2 ofS
" "
{to,
Subtracting the trip generation for the former uses of this portion of the property will yield a total
of net new trips. The remainder of the former ChiquitaJAgripac site-( 4.18 acres) was Heavy Industrial
(ITE Lr;znd Use 120) and would haVe generated about:
Average weekday 6.75 trips per acre, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of adjacenJ street traffic, 1.98 per acre, no directional split
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 2.16 per acre, no directional split
= 28 daily trips
= 8 AM trips
= 9 PM trips
NET NEW TRIPS.......................... = 2,951 daily trips
= 288 AM peak
= 397 PM peak
The north Y2. of the block south of 8th between Mill and Hilyard is zoned Light-Medimn Industrial
(although the '4-ses at the east end are residentiai). This area, ifrezoned to Community Commercial or for
similar mixed use would generate a different traffic mix, including: .
CommerciallRetail uses:
The parcels south of 81b between Mill and Ferry (approx. 1.22 acres, 53,143 sq. ft.) would be anticipated
to re-develop with the following uses, approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of buildings,
Day Care Center CITE Land Use 565), 5,000 sq. it. gfa
Average weekday 79.26 trips per 1,000 s.f. gfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator, 13.50/kgfa, 53% entering, 47% exiting
PM peak hour of generator, 13.94/kgfa, 47% entering, ~~% exiting
= 396 daily trips
68 AM peak trips'
70 PM peak trips
=
=
Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-through could be another likely use (ITE Land Use 833), 3,000 sq. ft.
Average weekday 786.22 trips per 1,000 s.f. gfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting = 2,539 daily trips
AM peak hour of adjacent street, 37.93/kgfa, 57% entering, 43% exiting = 114 AM peak trips
PM peak hour of adjacent stree:t. 4O.09/kgfa, 53% entering, 47%-exiting = 120 PM peak trips
Walk-in Bank (ITE Land Use 91.1), 5,000 sq. ft. gfa
Average weekday 156.48 trips per 1,000 s.f. gfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 4.07/kgfa, distribution not available
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 4.81/kgfa, distnbution not available
Specialty Retail Center (ITE Land Use 814), 5,000 sq. ft. gla
Average weekday 40.67 trips per 1,000 s.f. gla, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator, 6.41 per; kgla, 48% entering, 52% exiting
PM peak hour of generator, 4.93 per kgla, 57% entering, .43% exiting
= 782 daily trips
= 20 AM peak trips
= 24 PM peak trips
= 203 daily trips
= 32 AM peale trips .
= 25 PM peak trips
So the total of projected trips 3,920 daily trips
= 234 AM trips
239 PM trips
Subtracting the trip generation for the former uses of this group of parcels will yield a net new
trip total. Theformer (and some current) uses include an auto paint shop, U of 0 bookstore storage
warehouse/materials handlingfacility, and suifaceparking lots. These light-medium industrial uses (ITE
Land Use 110) would have beerz expected to generate:
City Council Agenda page 185
Page 3 of5
Average weekday trips/kgfa, 50% entering, 50% exiting (18x6.97)
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 88% enter, 12% ~it, 0.9 2/kgfa'
PM peak hour' of adjacent street traffic, 12% enter, 88% exit, O,98/kgfa
= 125 daily trips .
17 AM trips
18 PM trips
\..
=
NET NEW TRIPS................................. = 3,795 daily trips
= 217 AM trips
= 221 PM trips
Commercial/RetaillHousing uses:
The parcels south of 8th between Ferry and Hilyard (approx. 2.40 acres, 104,544 sq. ft.) would be
anticipated to re-develop with the following uses, approx. 35,000 sq. ft. of buildings, .
Specialty Retail on ground floor CITE Land Use 814),20,000 sq. ft. gla
Average weekday 40.67 trips per 1,000 s.f. gla, 50% entering,- 50% exiting
AM peak hour of generator, 6.41 per kgla, 48% entering, 52% exiting
PM peak h~ur of generator, 4.93 per kgla, 57% entering, 43% exiting
= 813 daily trips
= 128 AM peak trips
== 99 PM peak trips
Assuming the remaining 15,000 s.f. of ground floor plus the 35,000 s.f. of second story buildings are
residential uses (50,000 s.f. of residential apartments) ITE Land Use 220 (Ap~ent), about 75 dwelling
units, they would generate about:
Average weekday 1rips 6.63 per dwelling unit, 50% entering, 50% exiting
AM peakhoUI of adjacent street traffic, O.51/du, 16% entering, 84% exiting
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, O.62/du, 67% entering, 33% exiting
So the total of project trips
= 497 daily trips (-
38 AM peak trips
= 47 PM peak trips
= 1,310 daily trips
= 166 AM trips
146 PM trips
Subtracting the trip generationfor theformerlcurrent uses of this group of parcels will yield a net
new trips total. The former (and some current) uses include a packing and storage facility, warehouses
and approximately 10 residential dwelling units.
. The light-medium industrial uses (ITE Land Use 110) would have been expected to generate: '
Average weekday trips/kg{a, 50% entering, 50% exiting (-30x6.97) = 209 daily trips
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 88% enter, 12% exit, O.92/kgfa = 28 AM trips
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 12% enter, 88% exit,).98/kgfa = 29 PM trips
The residential uses (ITE Land Use 220, Apartment), about 10 dwelling units
Average weekday of 6. 63 trips/dwelling unit, 50% entmng, 50% exiting
AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, O.51/du, 16% entering, 84% exiting
PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, . O. 62/du, 67% entering, 33% exiting
== 66 daily trips
= 5 AM peak trips
= 6 PM peak trips
~T NEW TRIPs......................... = 1,035 daily trips
= 133 AM peak '(
= 111 PM peak
City Council Agenda page 186
Page 4 ofS
The projections above would represent a ''worst cast" scenario ~Ilustrating the maximum number
of trips generated by the )?otential new uses, less trips generated by existing or former uses, the
totals of which. are tabulated below:
SitelPotential Use Dailv ADT AM Peak PM Peak
Federal Courthouse 2,995 . 240 485
Co.inmerciallRetail on
Balance of Agripac site 2,950 290 400
CommerciallRetail on
N. % blocks/o 8th Ave. 3,795 215 '220
CommerciaJ/Mixed use
Residential above, 'N. ~ . 1,035 135 110
Block s/o 8th Ave.
Total New Trips............. ........ 10,775................. .... ...880....................... .1,215
City Council Agenda page 187
Page 5 ofS
/-/"
/'
I,t-
.tII'
ill
II
Exhibit B
enhances the provision of the housing needs of the community by encouraging additional
housing opportunities based on nodal development principles.
Therefore, the proposed Metro Plan amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning
Goal10.
:Goa111 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of pub?ic facilities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development.
The Downtown Plan area is located in the city limits and is served by pub~c facilities in
which the existing level of service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future
development. Therefore, the proposed Metro Plan amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012).
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the
regional policy fralilework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level. TransPlan
was acknowledged for compliance with Goal 12 in 2001.
Under the state TPR, a local government must provide a form of mitigation described in
OAR 660-012-0060(1) when the local government adopts amendments to land use
regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility. A land use regulation .
amendment "significantly affects a transportation facility" if it meets one of the following
four factors identified in 660-012-0060(2):
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
The proposed Metro Plan amendments.do n~t change. the functional classification of any
transportation facility.
(b) Changes standards implementing afunctional classification system;
The proposed Metro Plan amendments do not change the standards for implementing a
functional classification system.
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation
facility; or
Ordinance 1 Exhibit C - 5
C:\Documents and Settings\cep1nxl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK238\Ordinance 1 _
Findings - Exhibit C (0006S096-2).DOC
City Council Agenda page 143
The proposed Metro Plan amendments do not allow types or levels of uses which would.
result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification
of a transportation facility.
~'.".'.~'
..,.:;;
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the TSP.
The proposed Metro Plan amendments will not reduce the performance standards of any
facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TransPlan.
The proposed Commercial Metro Plan designation will not significantly affect existing
transportation facilities. Currently the Courthouse site is designated Heavy Industrial.
Redesignation to Commercial will allow land uses with different development densities
and transportation needs, but will not result in reduced performance standards for
affected transportation facilities.
The City compared trip generation for a variety of a variety of different development
scenarios on the city-owne.d site adjacent to the site under developmen~ for the new
Federal Courthouse. These scenarios assume that the Federal Courthouse will be
constructed on. approximately half of the property currently owned by the City. It is
reasonable to assume that the Federal Courthouse site will be used for the stated purpose
of building a Federal Courthouse. This assumption is substantiated by the federal
allocation of designated money, lengthy condemnation and purchase negotiations, the
expense and detail of the design process, and the demolition and construction contracts
for the same purpose.
f
....;:
Assuming a "worst case" scenario, with the maximum number of trips generated ~y
potential new commercial development on the remaining city-owned site, and subtracting
trips generated by existing or former uses, total new daily trips could amount to 5,945,
with 530 in the AM peak time and 885 in the PM peak.
This analysis shows that the existing transportation facilities are adequate to $erve this
amount of new development on the remainder of the site with acceptable levels of
service. The new Federal C9urthouse~ which will occupy approximately half of the 8.5
acres site, will be a land intensive use with relatively few employees (estimated at 270),
as compared to employment intensive uses allowed in Industrial or Commercial lands.
In addition, very few parking spaces, approximately 80, will be provided for employees
at the ,Courthouse.
The proposed transportation improvements planned in conjunction with the Courthouse
will improve the transportation facilities in this immediate area, particularly for
pedestrians. These improvements include the 6th Avenue Extension, portions of Ferry
Street and 8th Avenue, and a signalized intersection at 8th and Mill. . These improvements
and any additional changes to the street pattern or existing transportation facilities will be
analyzed as part of The Central Area Transportation Study (CATS). CATS will be
subject of a separate public hearing and review process.
Ordinance I 'Exhibit C - 6
C:\Documents and Settings\ceplnxl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK238\Ordinance 1 _
Findings - Exhibit C (0006S096-2).DOC
City Council Agenda page 144
, ./
..
,/ '
.r i
I'
'fII
-
,
. The proposed Metro Plan amendments are therefore found to be consistent with OAR
660-012-0060(2); no mitigation is required relative to OAR 660-012-0060(1).
Moreover, in determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with
planned transportation facilities, the OAR's set out certain automatic credits for reduction
in vehicle trips for developments in "mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly centers, and
neighborhood~." The addition of the "ND Nodal Development" Metro Plan Diagram
designation identifies the downtown area, our central business district, as a nodal
development, transit-oriented/pedestrian district. This designation enables the City to
qualify for this state credit in r~duction of vehicle miles traveled, in further compliance
with the State Transportation Planning Rule. .
Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The Metro Plan diagram amendments do not specifically impact energy conservation,
except to encourage compact urban development within downtown. The Nodal
Development concept supports compact urban level development, efficient transportation
systems, and use of alternative modes of transportation. The amendments are consistent
with Statewide Planning Goa113.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to ·
urban land use.
No property is being converted from rural to urban land use. For all the properties
affected by these amendments, all necessary urban services are in place. Therefore, both
amendments are c.onsistent with statewide planning Goal 14.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain
the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities
of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The .Metro Plan designates all areas adjacent to the Willamette River for Go~ 15
protection. The Eugene Land Use Code requires that, prior to the intensification of use,
change in use or development occurring on lands lying within the designated Willamette
Greenway boundaries, the City must approve a Willamette Gr~nway Permit. Sections
9.8800 through 9.8825 of the Eugene Code govern the Willamette Greenway Permit
process and specifically implement the requirements of Goa115. These amendments do
not effect the requirement that lands lying within the Greenway boundaries must obtain a
Willamette Greenway Permit, nor do these amendments change the permit approval
criteria. Further, these amendments do not affect the boundaries of the Willamette River
Greenway established by Eugene City Council Resolution No. 2592.
Ordinance 1 Exhibit C - 7
C:\Documents and Settings\cep1nxl\Local Settings\Temporary IntemetFiles\0LK238\Ordinance 1 -
Findings - Exhibit C (00065096-2).DOC
City Council Agenda page 145
Exhibit C
LANCASTER
engineering
October 6, 2006
James W. Spickerman
Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott
PO Box 1147
Eugene, OR 97440
Dear Mr. Spickerman:
As you requested, I have estimated the trip generation that could be produced by
development of the Eugene Motor Pool site on High Street in Eugene.
I understand that the site is about 1.7 acres in size, and that a change in the Metro
Plan designation for this property is proposed. The current Plan designation is High Den-
sity Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development (HDR/MU/ND), and the proposed Plan
designation is Commercial/Nodal. Development (Commercial/ND). The trip generation
estimates are based on a reasonable level of devel<:>pment of the site under both Plan des-
ignations. The assumptions for a reasonable level of development were based on the
highest density of development that is likely to occur at the site, using recent development
in the area as a. guide.
As we discussed, although on-site parking may not be required, it would probably
. be necessary in order to support any residential or office development, and may also be
necessary to support retail development. For this reason, the trip generation calculations
assumed that about half of the site would be used for a building footprint and about half
would be used for surface parking.
For the existing Plan designation, it was assumed that a 37,000 sq ft building foot-
print with retail uses on the ground floor and residential condominiums on the second and
third floors could be developed. The ground floor was assumed to house specialty retail
stores, and it was assumed that each of the two upper floors would have about 18 condo-
miniums.
To estimate the trip generation for development of the site under the existing Plan
designation, trip rates from the TRIP GENERATION handbook, 7th Edition, published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, were used. Trips from the retail development
on the ground floor were based on rates for ITE land-use code 814, Specialty Retail Cen-
321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400. Portland, OR 97204. Phone 503.248.0313. Fax 503.248.9251
~
JamesW. Spickerman
October 6, 2006
Page 2
ter. Trips from the condominiums were based on rates in ITE land-use code 230, Resi-
dential CondominiumlTownhouse. It is estimated that this development would generate a
total of about 119 trips during a typical weekday peak hour. It is possible that internal
trips between the residential and retail uses as well as walking, bicycle, and transit trips to
and from the site could reduce this total.
For the proposed Plan designation, it was assumed that a 37,000 sq ft building
footprint with retail uses on the ground floor and office use on the second floor could be
developed. As before, the ground floor was assumed to be used for specialty retail
stores.
To estimate the trip generation for development of the site under the proposed
Plan designation, trips from the retail development on the ground floor were based on
rates for ITE land-use code 814, Specialty Retail Center. Trips from the office floor were
based on rates in ITE land-us~ code 710, General Office Building. It is estimated that this
development would generate a total of about 155 trips during a typical weekday peak
hour. As with trips under the existing Plan designation, it is possible that internal trips
between the office and retail uses as well as walking, bicycle, andtransit trips to and from
the site could reduce this total.
On the following page is a summary of the trip generation estimates. The detailed
calculations are attached to this letter.
-'\ < ~
~
James W. Spickerman
October 6, 2006
Page 3
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Eugene Motor Pool Site
AM Peak PM Peak Weekday
Tril>s Trips Trips
Existing Plan Designation
Retail nla 100 1640
Residential 16 19 210
Total 16 119 1850
Proposed Plan Designation
Retail nla 100 1640
Office 57 55 408
Total 57 155 2048
Note: Trips for retail use during the AM peak are not available, but typicalf are minimal.
If you have any questions regarding this analysis or if any additional information .
is needed, please let me know.
~
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use: Specialty Retail Center
Land Use Code: 814
Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Leasable Area
Variable Value: 37
PM PEAK OF GENERATOR
Trip Rate: 5.02
Enter Exit Total
Directional 5 6 % 44 %
Distribution
Trip Ends 'ill,li"il,IB'i'i~iill :!j!,I~~I!!illill!,lll~~ ~1!~IIII~!~~i~
PM PEAK HOUR
Trip Rate: 2.71
Enter Exit Total
Directional
Distribution
44 % 56 %
Trip Ends i1j1il!:II,'llj"ij,i,'j'
~EKDAY SATImDAY
Trip Rate: 44.32 Trip Rate: 42.04
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50 % 50 %
Distributipn
Trip Ends II~i!!II~!III~~~i!I!! i~!i!ii!!!illll~!!f11~ lii!I~.lj~
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50 % 50 %
Distribution
Trip Ends !!IIII!!!iII~i~j!!~ 1!~I!i~~.j!i!lj~1 !1!lli\I~II,;;,i
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition
1e
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use: Residential Condominium/Townhouse
Land Use Code: 230
Variable: Dwelling Units
Variable Value: 36
AM PEAK HOUR
Trip Rate: 0.44
Enter Exit Total
Directional 17 % 83 %
Distribution
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. :: ::::::::::::::::::
..................... ;nnn~13~~~nn
..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.........3......... nHHHl6nnn
Trip Ends .. .. .. .... ..........
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ........
I~ ~ j ~ j j j j j 1; ~ ~ ~ ~ j j ~ ~ j j .. .. .... .. """
::::::::: :.. :::::::
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...................................... ..
..................... " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
",," ........... ..... ..... .. .. .. ",," .....
PM PEAK HOUR
Trip Rate: 0.52
Enter Exit Total
Directional
Distribution
67% 33%
Trip Ends : 111111 i~ II' \: II Iii I: Iii I ~ I: 111111 i.: I: I i ~~'.I i I. i
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
Trip Rate: 5.86 Trip Rate: 5.67
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50% 50%
Distribution
.. :..:.. :..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.. \:\mlMm:\ mii~it!m!
::::::105:::::
Trip Ends ...... .. .....
.. .. .. .... .. ......
.. .. .. .. .. ..
......... .. .....
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. :::::::..:......:::::
.. .. .. .. .. ..
:.:.:...........:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . . . . . . . . . .
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50% 50%
Distribution
..................... ..................... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trip Ends ::::::102::::: ~ ~ ~ j j j loi ~j ~ j ~ jj~~j~4jj~j~
.:.:':.. .':.:.:.
'....... .. '.'.'
....... ......
:::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::: : ..... ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
. ... . . . . ""'" . . . , . . . . . .
~
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use: General Office Building
Land Use Code: 710
Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area
Variable Value: 37.0
AM PEAK HOUR
Trip Rate: 1.55
Enter Exit Total
Directional 88 % 12 %
Distribution
" " " " " " " " " " " ..................... .....................
" " " " " " " " " "
Trip Ends ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S(i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~1~~~~m~ ~~~m~$7~j~~~j~
" " " " " " " " " " " .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. " " " " " " " " " " "
..................... " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " .," " " " " "
WEEKDAY
Trip Rate: 11.01
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50% 50%
Distribution
" " " " " " " .. " " " " " " " " " " " .. " " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " " .................... 111111mlllll:
Trip Ends ~111~1204111~~ lilill*!lm
" " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " " " " "
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
" " " " " " " " " "
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition
PM PEAK HOUR
Trip Rate: 1.49
Enter Exit Total
Directional 17 % 83 %
Distribution
" .. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " .. " " "
" " " " " " " " " " " ..................... " " " " " " " " " " "
,," ,,",,",," .'.. '. .....4O... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . ..
.........,......... ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ H46 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :m:m~*::i:::.
Trip Ends .. .. .. ... . .
.. . .. ... .....
~~~~~~~~~. :)nnn~
..................... ................. . . ....
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
............. ... . . ..' .' .. .....................
SUNDAY
Trip Rate: 0.98
Enter Exit Total
Directional 50 % 50 %
Distribution
. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .
...................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . .. ..
. . .. .. .. . .. . . .
........18....... nnnntsnun .......3(j......
Trip Ends . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .
~n~~~~~ .:. :~~~~H~ ~:~:~:~:: . .. ~:~:~:~
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . . .. . . . .. . . ..
. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. ..
. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .
.. . .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. . ..
c
ATTACHMENTE
Public Works
Engineering
T earn Central
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
858 Pearl St 3rd Floor
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)682-5291
. (541) 682-5032 FAX
www.eugene_or.gov
Date: October:16~ 2006
To: Ann Siegenthaler, PDD
From: Gary McNeel, PWE
Subject: Oregon Motor P091 site - MA 06-2
Review of Post Hearing Submittal Information
Ann, we have completed our review of the subject information provided by James Spickerman,
representative for the applicant, and offer the following comments for your consideration:
The documentation regarding trip generation provided by Lancaster Engineering (Exhibit C),
· Was based Upon appropriate source data (Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute
of TransportatioJ) Engineers (ITE),
· Utilized the. proper assumption set (ITE land-use code 814, Specialty Retail, ITE land-use code
230, Residential Condominium/Townhouse, and appropriate three story development with about
half the site building footprint and the other half for surface parking and associated landscaping,
· Provided trip generation estimates during AM (where available), PM peak periods and average
weekday for the site under existing plan designation and proposed plan designations, . and
· Included a comparative analysis of the Existing vs. Proposed Plan.Designation Trip Generation
estimates to show compliance with Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements.
We concur with the findings presented. and their demonstration of compliance with TPR requirements.
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT F
SUMMARY MINUTES
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium-99 West 1 Oth Avenue
September 19, 2006
6:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John
Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and
Development Department; Jim Spickerman, Richard Hunsaker, guests.
ABSENT:
Rick Duncan, Vice President; Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PUBLIC HEARING/DELIBERATION: OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE (MA 06-2, Z 06-9)
Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5452
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19, 2006
Page 1
MINUTES
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium-99 West 10th Avenue
September 19, 2006
6:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John
Lawless, members; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development
Department; Jim Spickerman, Richard Hunsaker, guests.
ABSENT:
Rick Duncan, V ice President.
Ms. Colbath convened the Eugene Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING/DELIBERATION: OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE (MA 06-2, Z 06-9)
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Siegenthaler offered the staff report.
The applicant requested approval of the following:
1. Metro Plan Amendment (MA 06-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram for the
subject property from a designation of High Density Residential/Mixed UseINodal
Development to a designation of CommerciaJ!Nodal Development.
2. Zone Change (Z 06-9) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning ofI-2/TD,
Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, to C-
2/TDIND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal
Development overlay zones.
Ms. Siegenthaler noted no refinement plan had been requested and none was needed for this
proposal.
In response to Ms. Colbath Commissioners Colbath, Belcher, Carroll, Hledik, and Lawless stated
they had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, or biases related to the information before
them.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the Staff Report
The Eugene Code required City staff to prepare a written report, prior to the public hearing, for
the Planning Commission's consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment or zone change
request. The Eugene Planning Commission would also consider additional public testimony and
other materials, if any, presented at the public hearing before making a decision. Following the
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page l
close of the public hearing record, the Planning Commission would make a recommendation,
based on the required approval criteria, to the City Council to approve, approve with
modifications or deny the applications. The requests would be heard before the City Council in a
separate public hearing, following a~tion by the Planning Commission. The quasi-judicial
hearing procedures applicable to this request were described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
The property subject to this request was th~ State of Oregon Motor Pool site, located at the
southeast corner of Pearl Street and Fourth Avenue. It was approximately 1.71 acres in size. The
property was currently being used as surface parking for State motor pool vehicles. On April 2,
2006, the owner's representative submitted applications to the City of Eugene for amendments to
the Metro Plan as well as a concurrent rezoning application. Following the receipt of the City's
completeness review comments, the applicant provided supplemental materials on June 8, 2006.
On July 14, 2006, the City requested additional information related to potential transportation
impacts. On July 24 and August 21, 2006, the applicant submitted additional revised findings for
Goal 12, Transportation. On July 28, 2006, the application was deemed complete without the
additional requested information, at the applicant's request.
As detailed in the staff reported included with the agenda for the September 19, 2006 public
hearing, referrals were provided to the appropriate agencies, and notice of the public hearing was
mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements as described in the staff report. No
letters of public testimony were received between the date of public notice. (August 18, 2006) and
the date the staff report was prepared (September 12, 2006). Any written comments received
after the preparation of the staff report would be provided to the Planning Commission at the
public hearing for inclusion into the public record.
Applicable Criteria
The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria from sections
9.7730(3), 9.8424, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code (EC) in making recommendations to the
Eugene City Council on the proposals, as listed below:
EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment
The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving or denying a Metro Plan
amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
EC9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria.
Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be
approved unless it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed change was consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram
where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
(2) The proposed zone change was consistent with applicable adopted refinements
plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan
controls. .
(3) The uses and density that would be allowed by the proposed zoning in the
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19, 2006
Page 2
location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban
facilities and services.
(4) The proposed zone change was consistent with the applicable siting requirements
set out for th~ specific zone in (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. .
(5) In cases where the NR zone was applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property
owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area was maintained
. as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
Recommendation
Based on the available information and materials in.the record, and the staff findings provided,
staff cannot recommend approval of the Metro Plan amendment or zone change, as there was not
sufficient information in the record to find that the proposal complied with EC 9.7730(3)(a),
specifically with regard to Statewide Planning Goal 12 as implemented through OAR 660-0012-
0060.
REPORT OF SITE VISITS
In responseto Ms. Colbath, Commissioners Hledik and Belcher indicated they had visited the
site.
CALL FOR TESTIMONY
Ms. Colbath introduced James Spickerman, the applicant's representative.
Mr. Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Gleaves, Swearingen, Potter & Scott, Law Firm, stated he
represented the State (State) of Oregon in the application being considered. He said he had
advised the State that it was not necessary to prepare a traffic impact analysis, based upon his
involvement in the development ofthe.Downtown Plan, and his understanding that the document
was supposed to be a working plan.
Mr. Spickerman said unlike other neighborhood refinement plans, the Eugene Downtown Plan
(DTP) had no diagrams, leaving only policy to discuss. He said the DTP contained
implementation strategies that provided possible ways to accomplish the goals of the plan. He
added when the DTP was adopted the policy was adopted and acknowledged to be consistent
with the Metro Plan and statewide goals.
Mr. Spickerman distributed copies of Eugene Code 9.9640 (South Willamette SubArea Study
Policies) and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Plan Diagram.
Mr. Spickerman, referring to his September 15, 2006 letter to the Planning Commission, asserted
the applicant did not believe that a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was necessary due to
the clear policy direction of the DTP for redesignation and rezoning of the site. He said it did not
make sense to him that a TIA was not necessary for plan adoption, but was needed to modify a .
plan.
Mr. Spickerman stated City Attorney Emily Jerome had suggested that he make additional
findings related to Goal 12, and a TIA may not be required. He understood one purpose of the
DTP was to facilitate development in the downtown area.
Ms. Colbath ascertained there was no one wishing to speak as a neutral party or in opposition to
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 3
the request.
Ms. Colbath opened the floor to questions from the Planning Commission.
In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Spickerman said there was nothing in the Oregon Administrative
Rules (OAR) that the applicant needed to prove up front that there would not be a significant
traffic effect.
Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Spickerman said in his understanding with Ms. Jerome, the
aspirationallanguage in the DTP was intended to prevent some policies from being used as
criteria that could be used to deny developments that were not in accordance with the adopted
policies. It did not mean that the policies were not directional for future development.
Mr. Spickerman asked to have the record kept open. He agreed with Mr. Nystrom's suggestion to
conclude the City staff response and Planning Commission questions before establishing a date to
close the record.
Ms. Siegenthaler said the City of Eugene did a trip generation analysis related to the
redesignation of the federal courthouse site. She added that the analysis assumed a worst case
scenario. There was a count of potential trips generated by the proposed designation versus the
existing uses on the courthouse site. As part of that analysis, there was also a comparative
analysis in which staff looked at the potential number of employees versus the kinds of traffic
generated by the current uses.
Mr. Yeiter said the courthouse amendment was adopted by the City Council the same day as the
DTP, adding as the City Council was adopting the policy basis, they also reviewed a trip
generation compariso~ to approve the courthouse designation.
Ms. Siegenthaler said that a refinement plan amended the Metro Plan, and that refinement plans
often contained specific directives related to a specific parcel, which was not the case with the
issue currently before the commission. She added that staff's interpretation of the policy was that
it applied in a broad sense, and was a directive to the community to promote redesignation of
underutilized sites, rather than a mandate. The language was broad enough that it could apply to
a number of underutilized sites in the downtown area, including those that were used as surface
parking. Although there was policy support for a commercial designation; it was not parcel
specific.
Ms. Siegenthaler said a significant amount of data was not needed to meet the Goal 12 findings
requirement. Simple comparisons, using readily available formulas and methodologies, between
the, types of uses that would be allowed in a commercial designation versus the kinds of trips that
would be generated by high density residential us'es, co.uld be submitted in support of the
proposal.
Mr. Nystrom stated it was important for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to support the
relevant criteria, and the level of analysis could vary from project to project. The issue was a
burden of proof question.
In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Siegenthaler affirmed that the City of Eugene completed the TIA
for the courthouse because the City was the applicant for the zone change. She added the affected
properties included a combination of city-owned and privately owned parcels. The TIA included
potential uses for the privately owned, industrial zoned sites, that consisted of an old cannery site.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 4
Mr. Belcher asked if there was a linkage in the DTP between Policy 3 and the "opportunity areas"
map previously distributed.
Mr. Yeiter did not know if the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) had looked at the
development potential of specific downtown sites. He confirmed that the Motor Pool site was in
mind when the policy in the Downtown Plan was established.
Mr. Belcher was concerned that a Planning Commission decision that concurred with Mr.
Spickerman's assertion could be used in future applications to claim that, the existing street
system could accommodate new development. He found much of what Mr. Spickerman said
regarding the purpose of the DTP to facilitate development was compelling.
Mr. Yeiter said creation of a new diagram or inclusion of more specificity in the DTP and CATS
update had originally been intended, but that did not ultimately happen due to lack of resources.
Mr. Nystrom said there was an effort to solicit interest by private property owners in a larger area
to do a broad zone change review by the City when the courthouse was under review. He added
that a change in a Metro Plan designation would have to have been reconciled at the time if the
intent was to meet the applicant's request. He added the DTP was not intended to make formal
designation changes, which differed from typical refinement pl,ans.
Ms. Colbath said Mr. Spickerman's case was compelling, particularly when he asked if a
refinement plan held the weight of the Metro Plan. Ms. Colbath said he asserted that
housekeeping changes had created a scenario where the Metro Plan had changed to meet the
refinement plan. She asked what effect traffic patterns would have on the downtown area.
Ms. Siegenthaler said the trip reduction measures in the downtown area could be factored into a
comparison, but these policies and overlay zones, including the transit oriented overlay and nodal
development zones, were aimed at reducing th~ number of automobile related trips. There was
nothing in these overlay zones that established what current vehicle trips were for a given use,
and to what degree those trips needed to be reduced. She said the overlay zones would be applied
when specific development proposals were submitted. She stated that although there may be
policies in CATS that addressed reduction of vehicle trips, the amount of traffic impacts relative
to the current proposal needed to be identified to satisfy Goal 12.
Mr. Nystrom stated that the required analysis m~y be a simple one that provided a defensible
argument that addressed the street systems, their level of service, how they currently operate, and
the net change to the system. At this point, the applicant had not submitted data upon which a
decision could be made.
Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Nystrom said all goal findings needed to be addressed as in a
refinement plan amendment.
Mr. Yeiter explained the process, noting that adopted refinements plans and policies were used as
the basis for the DTP process. Responding to a question regarding Mr. Spickerman's reference to
the South Willamette subarea, he stated that the recommendation was to redesignate some
properties to be consistent wjth the developed nature of the properties, that on Willamette Street
the diagram did not match existing uses, so the change reflected existing higher density
residential development. During periodic review housekeeping, a TIA was not completed, based
on the assumption that any needed TIAs would be done with refinement plan adoption.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 5
Mr. Nystrom added that housekeeping measures attempted to maintain consistency between
adopted plans. The intent was not to open up the discussion to new policies or new designations.
Mr. Hledik asked the following questions:
· Based on the findings, goals, objectives, policies, implementation strategies, and other
text, what was the intent of the twelve opportunity areas.
· Was there a specific intent for opportunity area number three as stated in the DTP.
· Referring to page 3 of Mr. Spickerman's September 15 letter, referring to OAR 660-012-
0060(2)(a)-(d), was there any issue that the findings were stated correctly.
o Mr. Yeiter responded that the quote, from ordinance number 20316, ~as
accurate.
· Was there a finding in the Downtown Plan adoption related to Section (1) of the
transportation rule.ofthe DTP.
o Ms. Siegenthaler said the intent in the findings was to address {I), which was the
case with this application.
· There must have been some level of analysis completed during the DTP review process
to conclude that, "the proposed refinement plan adoption. is consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 12. "
o Mr. Yeiter stated the DTP did not create a diagram, nor amend the Metro Plan
diagram, and CATS for the downtown area did not change the functional
classification of any streets, therefore Goal 12 was not affected.
. Did construction of the Third Avenue/Fourth Avenue connector take into account the
DTP and the anticipated development that was prescribed to occur by the DTP.
Mr. Belcher.asked if the Third Avenue/Fourth Avenue connector construction changed the
capacity of the street.
Mr. Yeiter said the street classification did not change. The planned connector improvements
predated the DTP. He added the general intent for the identified opportunity areas was to
encourage better and higher uses of the sites that were seen as underutilized,. One purpose of
the map was to encourage private investment on the identified sites. Mr. Yeiter said there
had been considerable discussion on the part of the City Council regarding city participation
in helping fund private dev~lopment, and the role of downtown as everyone's neighborhood.
The DTP reflected multiple purposes.
In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Yeiter said the courthouse district and ancillary properties
had been redesignated from heavy industrial to commercial in the Metro Plan, but had not yet
been rezoned.
Mr. Lawless asked if there were other similar sites in downtown that currently had a Metro
Plan designation other than commercial.
Mr. Nystrom said Eugene Water and Electric Board and several others near the courthouse
that fit the criteria.
Mr. Lawless asked how the Planning Commission would analyze a proposal with so many
potential combinations of mixed use, nodal development, and high density residential
components.
Mr. Nystrom said there needed to be sufficient evidence to show that all of the Statewide
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 6
goals had been adequately addressed. He said the applicant claimed that the evidence was in
the DTP, and while staff asserted there nothing in the DTP to rely on, and analysis was
required.
Mr. Yeiter distributed copies of Council Ordinance Number 20315, An ordinance amending
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to add the ND symbol to
the Eugene Downtown Plan area; redesignating the Federal Courthouse site from heavy
industrial to commercial; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date;
adopted on April 12, 2004. Exhibit B stated that the existing transportation facilities were
adequate to serve the total new daily trips under a worst case scenario.
Recalling the Knutson rezoning, Mr. Belcher said the commission looked at the potential uses
on the site with rezoning and potential impacts of those uses, and not the worst case scenario.
He asked if another TIA would be required at the applicant's site for a specific use.
Mr. Nystrom said there were thresholds in code, which may not be reached by the types of
projects on this site.
Mr. Belcher expressed concern that a future development at another downtown site could
generate a significant amount of traffic that would not require a TIA. Referring to Policy 3,
he asked if the DTP intended that redesignation occur at the time the plan was adopted, or
whether it could be. used to support a future rezoning.
Mr. Nystrom agreed that it was intended to support future rezoning, and at that point in time
Goal 12 would apply.
Mr. Hledik viewed the question differently. There were a number of key points, including
the statement from OAR 660-012-0062(2)(a)-(d): HThe Plan does not, by its adoption, allow
types or levels of land uses which would resl.l-lt in inconsistencies with the functional
classification of a transportationfacility, or reduce the performance standards of the
facility." This statement was a finding acknowledged and adopted by the State Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). He asserted this pointed to underused and
vacant sites that should be redesignated to C-2 or C-3, supporting the applicant's request for
approval.
Agreeing with Mr. Hledik, Mr. Lawless said there was sufficient support in the application,
particularly the map of opportunity areas that provided compelling justification for approval.
He understood the staff concern for sufficient evidence to tie all of the pieces together to meet
Goal 12 requirements, which could be a simple solution.
Mr. Carroll noted some findings in the staff report regarding Statewide Goal 13, Energy
Conservation, which stated that Goal 13 did not apply. He wondered if it was accurate to
state that certain goals did not apply or if it should be stated that the proposal was consistent
with goals.
Ms. Siegenthaler said that since there were no impacts to energy conservation anticipated
with the proposed amendment, to state that "therefore it was consistent with Goal 13," would
have been clearer. She added that staff would make the correction to the findings as
suggested.
Mr. Y eiter clarified that there had been discussion about how transportation should happen
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19; 2006
Page 7
downtown, and Goal 12 could not have been dismissed by simply saying it did not apply.
In response to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Siegenthaler said Planning staffrel~ed upon Public Works
staff for technical information regarding traffic impacts. She added the applicant had not
proposed any traffic information to evaluate against Goal 12 requirements.
Mr. Belcher claimed that the Transit Oriented Development (TaD) was irrelevant in this
situation. Referring to Policy 3, he said there was nothing that tied the policy to the map. He
feared that sometime in the future, a developer would claim a TIAwas not required,
regardless of how intensive the use would be.
Mr. Nystrom said staff would look to the applicant to propose something for analysi~. He
stated that the policies that were aspirational were intended to provide guidance for future
downtown commercial developments, but there was a process that needed to be followed in
order to implement those policies.
Mr. Belcher said Policy 3 provided support for the zone change, but did not eliminate the
Metro Plan process. He expressed concern that if the Planning Commission decided the
applicant's request was a de facto zone change, future applicants could claim the downtown
area was underutilized, thus setting a precedent that would eliminate the need to meet the
Metro Plan and state land use goals.
Mr. Hledik said parking lots were specifically called out in the DTP, and a future Planning
Commission could use discretion in making a decision regarding underutilized properties.
Ms. Colbath asked if the intent of the DTP was aspirational, but refinement plans directed the
Metro Plan, what "part of the DTP was not aspirational.
Mr. Yeiter said the ND overlay designation in the Metro Plan was adopted in conjunction the
courthouse work. The ND overlay identified the courthouse area as a pedestrian friendly,
transit oriented area that would allow an automatic ten percent reduction in traffic generation
numbers, and generate some Systems Development Charge (SDC) credits.
Mr. Nystrom stated"at the time the DTP was adopted, there were. discussions about the
policies being directive in nature, and whether some policies should have stronger weight. At
that time, only the EWEB policies reached that threshold, ultimately becoming part of the
city development code. He concurred with Ms. Colbath that the DTP was different from
other refinement plans, in that it did not have a diagram,. He stated making this a less
prescriptive and more aspirational document that provided a vision for downtown was a
conscious decision on the part of the City Council.
Mr. Belcher reiterated that the applicant had admitted that the requirement for a TIA was not
onerous, so the real question was: What does Policy 3 say, what was the required level of
analysis for the requested zone change. He said setting a precedent that analysis was not
required for a zone change would be very dangerous. He would vote that some transportation
analysis was needed.
Mr. Hledik opined the focus was not on Policy 3, but rather on the transportation planning
administrative rule. He asserted the DTP concluded that the plan was consistent with Goal 12
and none of the land uses proposed by the DTP would diminish the functional capacity or the
performance of the streets. Furthermore, the DTP had been acknowledged by DLCD. He
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19, 2006
Page 8
was concerned that if an applicant could not rely on an adopted and acknowledged plan, the
City was not meeting the objective of the DTP to simplify and expedite development
downtown. He stated that based on the DTP findings, further traffic analysis was not
necessary, and the applicant could rely on the plan. He opined that this recommendation
would not be appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), while discretion for other
types of applications would remain intact.
While agreeing that there was no traffic impact on the DTP, Mr. Belcher said the DTP did not
change any zoning. Mr. Yeiter added that the DTP required EWEB to have a plan. Mr.
Belcher added a precedent had been set with the courthouse site as an underutilized site,
where the City of Eugene completed a TIA.
Ms. Colbath expressed concern that City Attorney Jerome said the policies in the DTP were
generally aspirational in nature. She noted staff asserted that all policies but those regarding
EWEB were aspirational, which would require some type of analysis to meet the DTP
requirements.
Referring to the April 12, 2004 Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary regarding the
Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments, Mr. Hledik read
"the policies in the Downtown Plan cannot be the basis for denial of public or private
proposals regarding change in the downtown." He asserted the policies could not be used to
deny the applicant's request or any others, but the policies did not preclude the Planning
Commission from approving the request.
Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION
Mr. Lawless said in terms of the community wanting to grow up and not out,.the DTP
acknowledged that the transportation analysis typically required in other areas, was not of the
same weight outside <?f the downtown. He was leaning strongly towards setting aside further
transportation analysis for any develops within the DTP area because of the
acknowledgement that whatever happened downtown people were going to get around, and
downtown was going to become denser and adapt to that. He added the DTP would not have
been approved if that had not been desirable fot the downtown.
Mr. Belcher said he disagreed with the concept that if all of the underutilized properties
downtown were converted to commercial, the current transportation system would be
adequate. He added the downtown area would eventually be successful, necessitating
adaptation of the transportation system to meet that need. By setting a precedent, future
developments would be able to develop without a TIA, which did not make sense to him.
Mr. Lawless said as the uses intensified and the numbers grew, the system as currently
calibrated would need to grow proportionately. He added part of the downtown vision was
that the current 66 foot right-of-way would remain intact, and people would not be able to
drive around.
Ms. Colbath said if the right-of-way was constrained, the analysis indicated that more trips
would be generated by commercial uses opposed to high density residential. She asked if no
change in the functional street classification was intended to result from the plan, was the
intent that no change would occur because the plan was aspirational or if there was agreement
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 9
that there would be no functional change in the streets because the current streets would
support future uses.
Mr. Nystrom stated staff felt there was a gap with what was analyzed in the application. It
was important to provide data to support a conclusion for Goal 12.
In response to Ms. Colbath and Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter stated the redesignation of
courthouse site did not cause the new street to be built. He understood the existing streets
could have accommodated commercial uses at the sites, but there was a desire to provide a
safe pedestrian crossing.
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to take a straw poll on two issues:
· Recommend revising the findings to state that the proposal is consistent with the
Statewide Goal 13; straw vote passed unanimously, 5:0.
· Recommend amending the findings to support approval of both the plan amendment
and the zone change consistent with Goal 12, with the findings and information in the'
September 15, 2006 letter from Mr. Spickerman; straw vote defeated, 2:3, with
Commissioners Belcher, Carroll and Colbath in opposition.
In response to Mr. Belcher, ,Mr. Nystrom confirmed that Mr. Duncan would be able to
participate in further deliberation and vote if he reviewed the record of tonight's meeting.
In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter said a motion with a tie on a formal vote. would fail to
pass. Mr. Nystrom noted the vote would be forwarded to the City Council without a
recommendation.,
Mr. Yeiter solicited further direction from the commissioners who voted in opposition to the
second straw poll.
Mr. Carroll offered the following comments:
. Focus on transportation planning rule analysis in the DTP.
. Using DTP plan as a basis for denial did not pertain because it discussed, the merits
and content of the plan.
. Need for analysis of downtown related transportation issues.
. Need more information to be able to comply with the State goals; how can the City of
Eugene work with the applicant to ensure compliance.
. This would serve as a test case for future downtown zonings.
. No substantial analysis was made at the time the plan was.adopted; the plan was
consistent because it did not do anything; the analysis needed to occur at some point.
Mr. Belcher said the issue was not the degree of analysis required, but rather analysis needed
to take place to support the zone change request.
Ms. Colbath opined the level of analysis needed was not a TIA, but could be a low level of
analysis. She did not want the commission to be an impediment to good things happening
downtown.
In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Spickerman asked to have the record remain open for a
couple of weeks.
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 10
Following a brief discussion, Ms. Colbath noted consensus to leave the record open until 5:00
p.m. on October 10, 2006.
Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division \planning commission\pc060919ph.doc
MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
September 19,2006
Page 11
BY E-MAIL TO-ann.siegenthale~i.eugene.or.us
HARD COpy HAND DELIVERED
ATTACHMENT G
September 15,2006
Planning Commission
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
99 West 10th Avenue
~ugene, OR 97401
R~-~~~--ll
S E P 1 5 2006 J \
c l:rl (5Fr~ly5~:---~" I
p i)\~!!.!~~;;:.._,____--~~.:L-.J
Re: Response to Staff Report
Oregon Motor Pool Site (MA 06-2 and Z 06-9)
Dear Commissioners:
The staff recommends approval of the planning actions with the
exception of a negative finding on Statewide Goal 12 due to a lack of a
traffic impact analysis (TIA). The applicant does not believe that a TIA
is necessary due to the clear policy direction of the Eugene Downtown
Plan for redesignation and rezoning of this site. Even if specific
findings on Goal 12 are necessary, positive findings can be made on
Goal 12 without aTIA.
Besides the issue of the unnecessary expense of a TIA, we have not
capitulated to the staffs request in order to determine if the Eugene
Downtown Plan is going to be implemented' in a manner consistent
with the intent expressed at the time of the Downtown Plan's adoption
that it be a working and effective document to facilitate development in
the downtown area.
A. The Eugene Downtown Plan policy directs the redesignation
and rezoning of this parcel.
The applicable refinement plan is the Eugene Downtown Plan, adopted
April 12, 2004. ~n adopting that plan, the City Council did not alter
the Metro Plan Diagram. In a separate ordinance, the City Council
placed the Nodal Development overlay on the Downtown Plan area and
changed the land use designation of the Courthouse District from
Industrial to Commercial designation. Of course, there was and is no
Downtown Plan diagram but the text of the Downtown Plan was
completely revised, including adoption of a number of specific policies
to guide development of the downtown area.
Phone:
(541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-1147
Email:
info@orbuslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.orbuslaw.com
Sean M. Bannon
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
A. ). Giustina
Thomas P. E. Herrmann*
Dan Webb Howard
Stephen O. Lane
William H. Martin*
Laura T. Z. Montgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Ian T Richardson
Martha). Rodman
Douglas R. Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W. Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson
Jane M. Yates
* Also admitted
in Washington
Planning Commission
September 15,2006
Page 2
As indicated at page 1 of the Eugene Downtown Plan, the "central
themes" of the Plan were to reinforce downtown as a strong regional
center and strengthen downtown as a cultural center, a center of
community life.
Chapter II of the Plan, entitled "Building a Downtown," contains a
section, "Facilitating Development," where it is stated:
"... All zoning regulations for downtown should be
reviewed to look for ways to simplify and expedite
development downtown. In addition there. are underused
and vacant sites throughout downtown. Some of these
parcels are not designated for commercial use in the Metro
Plan, or are desig'nated commercial but not commercially
zoned. These sites, which include surface parking lots
downtown, need to be redesignated or rezoned to allow for
the commercial development envisioned in this plan." (p.
13)
Consistent with this statement, the Plan adopts as a Policy the
following:
"3. Facilitate downtown development by re-designating
and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface
parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a
commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3." (p. 14)
The "State Motor Pool site" is specified as area 3 on the map of A
Dozen Downtown Development Opportunity Areas at page 45 of the
Downtown Plan. As stated by the staff (staff report, p.15), "there is
strong policy basis fora commercial designation, as noted in B- D
Policy 2...." (Citing the above quoted Policy 3.)
It must be recognized that the new Eugene Downtown Plan is a
somewhat unusual refinement plan in the sense that, unlike most
refinement plans for a specific geographical area, the new Dowptown
Plan did not include a plan diagram. In that respect, it is more similar
to the 1992 Commercial Lands Study. It directed the redesignation of
certain sites but there was no land use diagram that redesignated
those sites, as there usually is in a refinement plan. [See discussion of
the Gravilte Properties case holding regarding the effect of direction in
Planning Commission
September 15,2006
Page 3
a refinement plan on Metro Plan Diagram amendments (pp. 35-36,
staff report).]
Unlike the Commercial Lands Study, and similar to other refinement
plans (e.g., neighborhood refinement plans), the Eugene Downtown
Plan did deal comprehensively with land use and transportation issues
for a limited geographical area following, intense study of that area.
The Downtown Plan includes adopted policies, some very specific,
intended to guide land use in the plan area to reinforce downtown as a
strong regional center and as a cultural center and center of
community life.
Goal findings were made on all applicable Statewide Goals and the
Downtown Plan, including the specific policies that called for
redesignation of particular parcels, was found consistent with the
Statewide Goals. The issue now is only the mechanics of the change
in the diagram to comply with what the adopters of the refinement
plan found to be consistent with the Statewide Goals.
The findings of the City Council in adopting the Downtown Plan cited
the Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a)-(d) and
stated:
"The Downtown Plan and related code amendments will
not significantly affect a transportation facility since they
do none of the things described in (a)-(d), above.
Four streets are proposed to be characterized as 'Great
Streets': Broadway, Willamette, Fifth Avenue and Eighth
Avenue. The plan proposes that design standards and
guidelines be drafted for each street to emphasize
pedestrian amenities, and to attract pedestrian friendly
development, in an effort to create a 'walkable' downtown.
No change in the functional classification of these streets
is intended to result from this Plan. In addition, no
changes are proposed to the standards that implement the
functional classification . system. The Plan does not, by its
adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would
result in inconsistencies with the functional classification
of a transportation facility, or reduce the performance
standards of the facility.
Planning Commission
September 15,2006
Page 4
Therefore, the. proposed refinement plan adoption is
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12."
That should be the end of the discussion. The Downtown Plan with
the policy language directing redesignation of the parking lot was
found, in the adoption of the plan, to be, consistent with Goal 12.
Tp.e staff or objector can make the claim that those findings on Goal
12 are not sufficient to justify the redesignation and rezoning of the
site without further traffic information. That may have been a valid
argument at the time of adoption of the Eugene Downtown Plan.
Perhaps the Council's findings on this point are not sufficient but
there was no objection in that regard and the plan was adopted and
acknowledged with the specific policy direction calling for
redesignation and rezoning of these sites.
It is important to note that the language at issue is a "policy" and not
one of the "implementation strategies" set forth in the Downtown Plan.
There are no contingencies to be satisfied prior to the policy's
application. Presumably, if the Downtown Plan had a Plan diagram,
the change would have been made at the time ofadoptio'n of the Plan.
Had that been the case, no additional findings on Goa112 would have
been necessary than were made when the text of the Plan was
adopted.
B. Goal 12 Findings.
Even if it were necessary to show again that the redesignation and
rezoning of this site is consistent with Goal 12, there is ample basis to
do that.
This site and area are subject to both the /TD Transit Oriented
Development Overlay Zone and the /ND Nodal Development Overlay
Zone. The purpose of the /TD zone states:
"The fTD Transit Oriented Developmen~ Overlay Zone is
intended to promote the creation and retention of mixed
land uses in areas with high potential for enhanced transit
and pedestrian activity. Pedestrian circulation and transit
access are especially important and have increased
.emphasis in areas with the fTD overlay zone. The
development standards are designed to encourage
Planning Commission
September 15,2006
Page 5
compact urban growth, opportunities for increased choice
of transportation mode, reduced reliance on the
automobile, and a safe and pleasant pedestrian
environment, by insuring an attractive streetscape,a
functional mix of complementary uses, and provision of .
amenities that support the use of transit, bicycles, and
pedestrian facilities." EC 9.4500.
As is apparent, this overlay zone is intended to minimize the use of
individual vehicles by promotion of the use of transit and
encouragement of pedestrian activity. The motor pool site is presently
vacant. The requirements of the /TD overlay zone are applicable to
"(n)ew structures on redevelopment sites, such as conversion of a
parking area toa building...." See EC 9.4510(2). Any development of
the site will have to address the requirements of the /TD overlay zone
which encourages pedestrian activity and places restrictions on the
location and type of parking facilities allowed.
Pursuant to EC 9.4270, since development of this parcel would involve
conversion of a parking area to a structure, all the provisio!1s of the
/ND overlay zone will be applicable to redevelopment. This means
that motor vehicle related uses and drive-through facilities will be
prohibited and there will be a limitation on the amount of ground floor
area that may be occupied by retail uses in any new building. Both of
these <?verlay zones will tend to minimize the area's suitability for
individual motor vehicle use.
This area is logically a nodal area and it is near transportation
systems. The Central Area Transportation Study (CATS), adopted May
24, 2004, specifically addresses this area. The 2004 update of CATS
states that it is focused on changes to the transportation system that
res~lt from the update to the Eugene Downtown Plan (see page 6). At
page 61 of CATS, the transit system discussion map indicates the
portion map of High Street adjacent to the subject site is to be a
Downtown Shuttle Service route and potential future BRTroute.
EC 9.9515 consolidates, in the Eugene Code, the policies of CATS.
Policy (l)(a) states:
"Promote the development of a transportation system
within the downtown area that supports the goals of the
Downtown Plan...."
Planning Commissio.n
September 15,2006
Page 6
EC 9.9515(2)(a) states:
"Improve the pedestrian system in the downtown area to
encourage walking as a primary means of transportation
within downtown."
EC 9.9515(2)(b) encourages the creation of "great streets" in the
downtown area that will stimulate pedestrian activity while allowing
bicycle and slow-moving automobile traffic.
EC 9.9515(4) contains a policy that supports "frequent transit-based
shuttle service in the greater downtown areas."
All of these policies of CATS set forth the clear direction that the
downtown area is to be pedestrian and transit oriented, consistent
with the finding that the proposed plan amendment will not
significantly affect any transportation facilities.
When the Eugene City Council adopted the Downtown Plan, the
Council noted in its findings that the proposed transportation
improvement plan in conjunction with the development of the area
would improve the transportation facilities in the immediate area,
particularly for pedestrians. Noted in the findings at that time and
relevant here are the provisions in the Transportation Planning Rule
for automatic credits for reduction in vehicle trips for developments in
"mixed use, pedestrian-friendly centers or neighborhoods." , As
discussed above, as an existing central business district and a jTD
transit oriented district area, this area meets the definition of a "mixed
use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood" as that term is
defined in the TPR. This designation would enable the City to qualify
for State credit in reduction of vehicle miles traveled, in further
compliance with the TPR.
All of the above factors and the findings of the Council that the
Downtown Plan, with a policy.in place that directed redesignation and
rezoning of the motor pool site, confirm that this amendment to the
Metro Plan will not significantly affect transportation facilities,
therefore, is consistent with Goal 12.
The City seeks to require of the applicant extensive data including:
Planning Commission
September 15, 2006
Page 7
"... trip generation, trip distribution and assignment,
existing levels and patterns of traffic/travel to and from
the site and the level of service of each nearby (upstream
or downstream) intersection, existing and planned
access(es) and comparative analysis of each of these under
existing plan designation(s) and proposed plan
designation(s)." (Staff report, p. 11.)
This is a curious request in light of that which was found satisfactory
to meet the Goal 12 requirement when the Courthouse District,was
rezoned. It may be recalled; two ordinances were presented in dealing
with the downtown area. One ordinance adopted the new Downtown
Plan. The other ordinance applied the nodal overlay to the entire
Downtown Plan area and redesignated the federal courthouse site of
9+ acres from Heavy Industrial to Commercial. In making positive
findings on Goal 12, the City cited the proposed transportation
improvements plan in conjunction with the courthouse which included
the 6th Avenue extension, a portion of Ferry Street and 8th Avenue and
signalized the intersection of 8th and Mill~ the effect of the nodal
development area and that this would be a "mixed-use, pedestrian-
friendly center, neighborhood."
The Council did not have before it a traffic impact analysis with the
information the staff would like to require of the applicant here. It
only had a memorandum from Public Works with the stated subject
and content: "Courthouse District Trip Generation Estimates." This
was a computation of trips generated by trying to project what the
land uses would be on this 9+ acres of commercial land and the trips
that would be generated if those land uses did in fact occur. As is
apparent, this is only one type of data of the above list of types of data
the City now deems necessary.
In spite of the generation of 10,775 new trips, no detailed analysis
such. as level of service analysis, was required and the Council found
that the . change in land use designation would not significantly affect
the transportation facility.
c. Conclusion
The State of Oregon, both directly through contact by members of the
Department of Administrative Services staff and through counsel,
participated in. development of the Downtown Plan from the outset.
Planning Commission
September 15, 2006'
Page 8
Prior to the initiation of the plan, the State of Oregon met with the City
to explore the possibility of redesignation of the motor pool site. They
were advised the Downtown Plan process was soon to commence and
use of this site could likely be addressed in the context of that
refinement plan. Eventually, the result was the policy at issue which
was intended to include this site as well as such sites as the parking
lots near the train depot.
The policy calls for facilitating downtown development. Development
is not facilitated if each property owner must, independently.of the
adopted Downtown Plan, justify a change in the Metro Plan diagram
by findings of consistency with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals as
if the Downtown Plan was never adopted. The Downtown Plan had the
effect of amending the Metro Plan text leaving only the implementation
of the Plan's policy by amending the Metro Plan Diagram so that the
Plan is internally consistent.
jca
cc: Client
Emily Jerome
Eugene Code
~;$f'~S
.-/iPC p~.6 ~
2. To encourage preservation as open space those areas
characterized by:
a. Intermediate and steep slopes.
b. Higher elevations.
c. Significant amounts of vegetation.
d. Significant visual impact.
(c) That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any
development by a qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the
following conditions:
1. All formations:
Soil depth of 40 inches and above.
Slopes of 30 percent and above.
2. Basalt flows:
Soil depth of 40 inches and above.
Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent.
3. Eugene Formation:
Soil depth of 40 inches and above.
Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent.
4. Basalt flows:
Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches.
Slopes of 30 percent and above.
5. Eugene Formation:
Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches.
Slopes of 30 percent and above.
(d) That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space
elements of different developments in order to preserve the maximum
amount of continuous open space.
(e) That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to
insure that development blends with rather than dominates the natural
characteristics of the south hills area.
(f) That all proposed road locations be reviewed to insure minimum grade
disturbance and minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas
most visible due to slope, topographic or other conditions.
(g) That planned unit development review shall be based upon a
recognition of both public and private interest. In areas of significant
conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed
to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed
to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through use of an
alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public
interest in any determinations.
(h) That all developments shall be reviewed for potential linkage with or to
the ridgeline system.
(i) That all developments (planned unit developments or subdivisions) be
reviewed to insure maximum preservation of existing vegetation.
(Section 9.9630, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through
6/1/02; and amended by Ordinance No. 20269, enacted November 25, 2002, effective
December 25, 2002.)
9.9640
South Willamette Subarea Study Policies. ]
(1) Rezone the lot on the east side of Willamette, south of 24th Place from C-2 to
9-535
03/17/2006
Eugene Code
General Office, to support the transition from residential north of 24th Place to
commercial south of the subject lot. . .
(2) The southeast corner of the block between 18th and 19th, Oak and Willamette
is currently zoned R-3 and occupied with low-density residential uses. This
four lot area faces residential development across Oak Street and across 19th
Avenue. The uses on the remainder of the block are office or commercial but
are oriented toward Willamette or 18th Avenue. This study recommends that
the Metro Plan be refined to support the continuation of medium-density
zoning as an appropriate use for these parcels. Additionally, traffic projections
for a two-way Willamette Street indicate a 3000 vehicle decrease on Oak
between 18th and 20th, which also supports the continuation of the integrity of
residential uses in the area.
(3) The School District-owned Civic Stadium and bus garage property is
appropriately designated for medium density residential development on the
Metro Plan Diagram, but should remain zoned Public Land as long as the
Civic Stadium use remains.
(4) Commercial or office zoning along Willamette between"19th and 24th Place .
should not be expanded. The area should appropriately remain in residential
uses as it is designated in the Metro Plan Diagram. The traffic volumes
projected for a two-way Willamette in this section are approximately 12,000
vehicles per day, an increase of 4,400. This level of traffic is lower than
several other arterial streets which are primarily residential: 18th Avenue, 11th
Avenue between downtown and Garfield Street, and Patterson south of 24th.
Staff feels that the projected increase in traffic volumes does not support the
conversion of residential to office or commercial uses.
(5) In recognition of existing mix of low, medium and high density residential uses
and the current zoning on the west side of Willamette between 19th Avenue
and 24th Place, this study recommends that the Metro Plan diagram be refined
to reflect a high density residential designation on parcels currently zoned R-3
in the area.
(6) The zoning and planned use designations for the remainder of the study area
should remain as is. In particular, the area on the east side of Willamette
Street between 19th and the Civic Stadium property is an appropriate area for
medium density residential development. The area on the east side of
Willamette between 19th and. 18th is appropriately designated and zoned as
commercial.
(Section 9.9640, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through
6/1/02.)
9.9650
TransPlan Policies.
(1) land Use.
(a) Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each
jurisdiction that have identified potential f~r this type of transportation-
efficient land use pattern.
(b) Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development,
including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major
transit corridors and near transit stations; medium- and high-density
residential development within 1/4 mile of transit stations, major transit
corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development
and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served
9-536
03/17/2006
J'
\.
(" ,
i
(
,".
'.' .--~
~4~J'~ .
.~..~, OJ
rrs-d ~ ......
;~I(. . --~ . '.
.~I J ~'K_
'. ,/ ~,-~, .'. i::J ~ .
.........
I. ..
I; I. .:.
I .',.
ii!
...
...V~..'.....
tEJON;;;;;;]
....... T\/;
........'i
I
.
.,~
L .', ".
OSlEl;:A:J:1P
.:lBM
SM:lIAA.UO
01
~
....
,....
~
~
OU1
Alliva ~ _
i' ..",.
1'>"';\
L' .: ,
o
~O
~:~.
_:~
,
....
tn
:t
a...
-
l
~y- , _ ~. R
t ><"'ll<1Ili tJtt ~~.. Si
)C < ~
'jrc)( ~ Jta'lll
~ '111! "..
d..- · III"
lII!
W
lJ
~~~~ ~
~ >f.'
~
'.'
. ,.."
.:
~~ '
'~l'~
'.--:-
;1 ~
......i X . .......ti., I. ~"
.'-.Li.;........~ ~~
L.},(i~ 0
I ~
ru
(
~t
-,--
-1t~
~~
t
::J
~
>
?,~
""VV/D
~
~
:,,'
'" ;'!'
I' .".'
....;, .
.
'.
,
.
'. f
',"10 '.' . .;J
.~;
... .,.'
;~... .
, .--~ .<
"
'," .
'...1
, -~...tI'
:E : ; ~ .~q
0) ... _ ... ~t:::
.....- <C " .c.....
.... C) <.).~
.... ca~~
'-', - -- ~O
C case a.s
-- as ... ,..~]
... ..,0) -. biJ';
0. -_- C _co.;:g-;::
08
~^ 0 0.. fa ~
VrI' 0) ~ ~
cD 0.0 CJ ~ ~.
o...c
C ... /1) V'l
TJ)V'i
0-
0) .... ~~
-D) 0) ~~
:E c: -0
IIIIlt C'j c:
.., c: ~
W .$2 ~
E:g
~~
~]
.s~
/1)t+-.
EO
~
1&
+:i
c
'0 .,
II! '0
c: 'ii
::J 10
~ -I ~
:J t;
,2 "ii
-~ ! :;
tf a:
.
]
co ..c
:J co e
""0
E t: IV
t; 4)
E co
:J <I)
::J '0 a:
:0 1: >-
t) U) +"
:?E :J 'w
.c 0- ~
E
0) co 02
::i 0 ::>
[.......1 ~
co
co ~ co.
e>>
+i ""0 +i
c c; r::
CD t! CD
""0 "'0
om ~ OC;
CD <I)
a: c; a:
~ c ~
.,
'm- 0 'C;
c E c:
., CD
0 ::J 0
~ "2 .J::
a
.9 ~ :E
[~::']
~
ca
""0 ~
C
::J co
0 "0 U)
C
IX) ::J "2
.t: dI
~ ,f
C ""0
0 co co
Ci c
ii: ""0 ca
c e co U)
to E ~
.D 1; 'co
:; ~ IX: if
~. , " 'x <
"'.>t
./ , )/'
<. .""
~ ... X
, 'y
l:-
\
\~ 1
"-.------------. --- </{1'- .._"., "', "-. ''-.,
li
~!.'
!l
<'--, ~(l..i.A!l;' i.I,
"------~-----_._.I\ \
\.
EUGENE-SPRINGFIEL.D
METROPOLIT:AN A
GENE.RAL. PLJL~
PL.'-ll'f DIAG.&~"'V:i
o Vc;".~' n,~n~:r.:l Rt;it.~t~Ci~t~
. CJ r,~~-dJ.I;:""j.. Dt-I'.li(':T R'~ii:d~r..th.l
~tJ D~in!:i::~ R,~:,ffL:&.z~.'cl~.
1:;'}m.m:e~;~W
. ~11s.~{O! R~~ \:'~r,t~r
. H~~'",'Y l.'"'.;:~'1J..;t.rt~
. iS~.t~.::iui Hf;i!itry Inl{lJ:f,t.r~ar
Lit;p.c. ?:;~~;ib,l;:n !ni3uit:!a!
lS.:pM:..a.l Bg.ht In<d';1..t!~~C
vrJ.v~;r:E~7./!R~.io;,:;,,".: h
..._....;~ 't,irtl';i;tj (.)t.v.~-tI+\ BIf;Un~if.ry
. .. pjl.1!. E<!l'lU't,i~rz"
F F~:~ti. H~d~
i~'
~
i:)~I./~.mm,r;'7\.t :!i E.i 1i.;-*^~(Jt71
. P;U'k5-€~ '::',??H S;'ii.:-e-
. ~,y.1J;>:'~~i;:~ Ru'.Q-y'::~
S.ar..d ,t,; Or,'s.o~t
. ~!:{r.:.1i;tur.f..
. '11'...._:.11..",. T~.~.~
. .I:.'w..l...."._ ~....'"
~.~l1r.t.l R~s ::P~!:. t:::~
R~J: i~.:Tr...:."'T;.~H.t~,
1-:;:....,"; . "'(11....., Po ,. . .' .
.......... '.". ....................... ,_ .r...}..,'!:>." ".'.t,oe. r.,~.
.. :;..:...~
tti~:ri ftlf:t.flt"'f'~,
. Mix,~.!j l1Mf
F..~.fb..:t.e-m~TltP~fJl
c
ATTACHMENT H
Public Works
Engineering
T earn Central
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
858 Pearl 5t 3rd Floor
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5291
(541) 682-5032 FAX
.www.eugene.or.gov
Date: September 11, 2006
To: Ann Siegenthaler, PDD
From: Gary McNeel, PWE
Subject: Goal 12 - Transportation Planning Rule. (TPR) Reviews
Ann, PWE staff review all applications for Metropolitan Plan Amendments for compliance with
applicable sections of Statewide PI8:nning Goal 12, specifically OAR 660-012-0060, which req~ires local
governments to analyze Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments for compliance 'with the TPR. This
analysis begins with a review of a proposed amendment to functional plans, an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation to determine whether the change Hwould significantly affect
an existing or planned transportationfacility'~ Criteria outlined in the TPR to determine significant affect
include wheth~r the proposed amendment would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility,
(exclusive of correction of map errors in"an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that wouldresult in types or levels of travel or
access that'are inconsistent witl1 the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
, (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planed transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance'standard identified in the 'TSP or comprehensive pl~; or,
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to perform below th~ minimum acceptable, performance standard identified in the
TSP or, comprehensive plan.
An evaluation of these criteria requires data - trip generation, trip distribution and assignment, existing
levels and patterns of traffic/travel to arid from the site and the level of service of each nearby (upstream
or downstream) intersection, existing ,and planned access(es) and comparative analysis of each of these
under existing plan designation(s) and proposed plan designation(s). Empirical data on a wide range of
land uses is available from the Trip' Genera(ion report published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, which is the industry standard utilized nationwide to determine traffic impacts of development.
Once the local government has determined' Usignificant affect" there area number of remedies for
applications that to enable plan amendments to comply with the TPR, however such compliance cannot
be reviewed without a determination of OAR 660-012-0060(1).
Page 1 of 1
~~;~
=~ D ~[d. ~ ~OV~~Rq
rrr1n'" .. 2ND AVE ,~ N
~j r. . ~~~O~~~i] A v
~ -~;~~~WJ~ 1
~VE ~.w ~~_vv~~tIjt=jiW~8/1'
~~, .. . . .... L.-,) - -
lllU LL-J ~ ,
rn ~ tfrj 1 to EJj D DU ........
7mA~ 0
[OJ lli[f rn mo. 6JD D 0- nQ
am - mrw b[l 8. .6jDO ...w ' ;
~~gm~ig~~.. t. 1 -i' ~~
tI~W~B!~B~[iBEJ . I~ ~g~~ ~~~
10TH AVE . V"< t;;>-- _ _
.DEJ D E90 ~D aD DbI1D~...:= J:lr--~ ~ ~ ~..__.Q-II
DfiJ I EDfg DB 5JD BB DD~ml~H II~ rn ~1TI ~ rill t
· 13TH AVE. . 13TH AVE .
r~[ ~ !-:~ ~ ~"-ei --.. r ~ '~[R go [gJJJ IT:] [I]JR:
I~ . r ~ r- II fl= FhTr= bJ!j[]J arm 81IB BJ]] ELJI[Q ~
94 ~~..~~ ~:~ ~~ ~~.~bJ ~m m ~ ~~ll ~ ~
. 15TH AVE
; ~ -=l~l -f uSS Ef 1f!:!=3 L-:I1P - ~p ~ ~ HP=J J I~ Iff r I l I 1 Ii
",
~
;
" ~
~:. :>lo.,.
'.:?:::
'~:~-:.
A Dozen Downtown DEVI:LOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Courthouse district 5 Willamette and Broadway a~ea 910
County Elections block 1 8th and Pearl site 6 Sears s~e
Train depot area 2 M h t 11
Broad' way and High area 7 Bon" arc e 51, e
. State Motor Pool 5ite 3 d t 12
CI"' ite 8 RI enour 51 e
Midgely.s block 4 Eugene ,n'e 5
As of 4/12/04
. ,
EUGENE DOWNTOWN PLAN · APRIL 2004 45....
. ~~Iy~~~,PC~
ATT ACHMENT I
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
September 19, 2006
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission
FROM:
Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing for State of Oregon Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment,
Refinement Plan Amendment, and Zone Change (MA 06-2 and Z 06-9)
ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a public hearing on the proposed Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment and zone change. (Note: A Planning Commission study session
related to this item is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. September 19, 2006, prior to the public hearing.)
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On September 19,2006, the Eugene Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan and approve a concurrent zone change for the
following:
File name: Oregon Motor Pool Site
Property location: 445 Pearl Street, Tax Lot #1703304408900
Applicant/owner: State of Oregon Administrative Services
Owner's representative: Jim Spickerman of Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott LLP
The applicant requests approval of the following':
1. Metro Plan Amendment (MA 06-2) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram for the subject
property from a designation of High Density ResidentiallMixed UselNodal Development to a
designation of CommerciallNodal Development.
2. Zone Change (Z 06-9) to rezone the subject property from the existing zoning ofl-2ffD, Light-
Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone, to C-2ffDIND Community
Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal D~velopment overlay zones.
BACKGROUND:
Purpose of Staff Report
The Eugene Code requires City staff to prepare a written" report, prior to the public hearing, for the
Planning Commission's consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment or zone change request.
The staff report, is attached as Attachment A, Staff Findings. The Eugene Planning Commission will also
consider additional public testimony and other materials, if any, presented at the public hearing before
making a decision. Following the close of the public hearing record, the Planning Commission will make
a recommendation, based on the required approval criteria, to the City Council to approve, approve with
modifications or deny the applications. The requests will be heard before the City Council in a separate
public hearing, following action by the Planning Commission. The quasi-judicial hearing procedures
applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
The property subject to this request is the State of Oregon Motor Pool site, located at the southeast comer
of Pearl Street and 4th Avenue. It is approximately 1.71 acres in size. The property is currently being
used as surface parking for State motor pool vehicles. On April 21, 2006, the owner's representative
submitted applications to the City of Eugene for amendments to the Metro Plan as well as a concurrent
rezoning. Following the receipt of the City's completeness review comments, the applicant provided
supplemental materials on June 8, 2006. On July 14, 2006, the City requested additional information
related to potential transportation impacts. On July 24 and August 21, 2006, the applicant submitted
additional revised findings for Goal 1'2, Transportation. On July 28, 2006, the application ,was deemed
complete without the additional requested information, at the applicant's request.
As detailed in the attached staff report, referrals were provided to the appropriate agencies, and notice of
the public hearing was mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements (described further in
Attachment A, Findings). No letters of public testimony were received between the date of public notice
(August 18, 2006) and the date the staff report was prepared (September 12, 2006). Any written
comments received after the preparation of the staff report will be provided to the Planning Commission
at the public hearing for inclusion into the public record.
Applicable Criteria
The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria from sections 9.7730(3),
9.8424 and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code (EC) in making recommendations to the Eugene City Council on
the proposals, as listed.below.
EC 9.7730(3) Criteria for.Approval of Plan Amendment.
The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan
amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
EC 9.8865 Zone Chane:e Approval Criteria.
Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be
approved unless it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written
text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent
conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the
event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be serVed through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and
services.
(4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for
the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter
into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural
resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
Findings addressing the required approval criteria have been prepared by staff and are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the
attached staff findings, staff cannot recommend approval of the Metro Plan amendment or ,zone change,
as there is not sufficient information in the record to find that the proposal complies with EC 9.7730(3)(a),
specifically with regard to Statewide Planning Goal 12 as implemented through OAR 660-0012-0060.
ATTACHMENTS: It was not feasible to reprint all of the written materials, attachments, and other
items included in the file record for this application as part of the attachments to the Staff Findings. The
other materials listed below are only available for review at the Planning Division. Copies of the
materials found in the file record for this application can be provided upon request for a fee. The
Planning Commission will be provid~d a full set of the applicant's materials and all public testimony (if
any) for review.
Attachment A. Staff Findings, aerial photo of site and vicinity
Attachment B. Applicant's Metro Plan Amendment Application Materials submitted April 21, 2006
Supplemental application materials submitted June 8, July 24, and August 21, 2006
Attachment C. Applicant's Zone Change Application Materials submitted April 21, 2006
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by phone at 541-682.-5452 or via email atann.siegenthaler@cLeugene.or.us.
ATTACHMENT J
Attachment A
Staff Findings
Oregon State Motor Pool Site (MA 06-2, Z 06-9)
Metro Plan Diaeram Amendments
The proposed amendment would change the current Metro Plan land use designation of High Density
Residentiall Mixed UselNodal Development to CommerciallNodal Development. The High Density
Residential designation is intended for multi-unit developments of typically over 20 units per acre. The
Mixed Use designation is typically applied within a designated Special Area Plan, however, the subject
parcel is not located within a Special Area. There is no corresponding zoning that implements this
designation. The Nodal Development designation has been applied to all the downtown area to
recognize Eugene's central business district as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center, pursuant to OAR
660-012-0060(7).
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria be applied to a Metro Plan diagram
amendment:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
After review of the proposal, staff made a preliminary determination that additional information would
be needed to demonstrate the proposal's consistency with Statewide Goals, particularly with Goal 12,
Transportation, as required in criterion (3)(a) above. Staff requested additional information of the
applicant (applicant/applicant's representative) related to transportation, such as could be provided in a
traffic impact analysis. The additional information is not provided, for reasons stated in the application
materials. Based on the. information in the record, staff cannot make positive findings that the criterion
in EC 9.7730(3)(a) is satisfied. Staff finds that the approval criterion in EC 9.7730(3)(b) is satisfied.
Staff findings relative to both Metro Plan diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3) (with criteria in
bold italics) are presented below.
(aJ The am.endment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
The applicant states that at the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan that "Goal findings were made
on all applicable Statewide Goals and the Downtown Plan, including the specific policies that called for
redesignation of particular pa~cels..." and that, therefore, "the direction of the Downtown Plan with
regard to this parcel is not conditional upon any additional findings of need or land use inventory
considerations" (applicant's letter to City of Eugene June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the
applicant's conclusion that. Statewide Goal findings have already been made supporting the specific
proposed Plan amendment. Below are staff findings relative to the proposal's consistency with all
Statewide Goals.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved In all phases of the planning process.
In its land use code, the City has State-acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the
opportunity for citizens to be involv.ed in all phases of the planning process and that set out r~quirements
for such involvement. The proposed action does not amend these.citizen involvement provisions. The
process for reviewing the proposed amendment complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of, the State-acknowledged citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of the
amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on September 19, 2006.
On August 3, 2006, the City mailed.notice of the proposed plan amendments and zone change to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by the Eugene Code and in accordance
with State statutes. Referral comments were requested on June 27, 2006, after the initial application and
on August 2, 2006, after supplemental materials were received. Referrals were sent to the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Springfield, Lane County, the Downtown Neighbors
Association and to City departments, consistent with the Eugene Code. On August 18, 2006, notice of
the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and owners and occupants of
property within 500 feet of the subject property, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and other
interested parties who requested notice, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On August 30, 2006,
notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register-Guard, in accordance
with the Eugene Code. On August 17, 2006, notice was also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5).
In addition to public meetings and mailed notices, printed materials related to these proceedings were
made available to the public at Planning and Development Department offices. An additional public
hearing before the Eugene City Council will be scheduled following Planning Commission action.
Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for that hearing.
The process for adopting this amendment is consistent with Goal 1. since it complies with, and surpasses
the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis
for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) 'is the policy tool that provides a
basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in
compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record show that there is an adequate
factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans
be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for
review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City coordinated the review of the proposed amendments with all affected
governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the. State Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, and the City of Springfield. There
are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
()regonMotor Pool - Prelirninary Fjndings~ Septelnber 12~ 2006
Page 2 of 13
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 . excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject property is entirely within its
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendment does not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goa14 is not applicable to this amendment as the subject parcel and actions do not affect any forest plan
designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries; therefore it does not apply to
the subject property, which is within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not
relevant and the amendment does not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces" Scenic and Historic Areas" and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and
protect natural and scenic resources.
OAR 660-023-0250 does not require local governments to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a post
acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. The subject
property do~s not include any Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendment does not create or amend
a list of Goal 5 resources, does not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a
significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, and does not amend the
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Goal 6 - Air" Water and Land Resources Ouality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water,
and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water
and land from impacts from those discharges. Nothing in the proposal or the character of the site or
potential uses indicates a future development that would compromise air, water and land resources. The
proposal does not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource policies. Therefore,
the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and
wildfires. The subject property is relatively flat in the midst of an urban area, and is not located within
known areas of natural disasters or ~azards. The subject property is outside the FEMA flood zone and is
not subject to hazards normally associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. Other hazards, such
as earthquakes and severe winter storms can be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted
building codes and building techniques. Therefore, this amendment is consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 7.
[\11 ()((}r 1)00 I ON
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors
and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with
the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. There are no public or private
recreational facilities on or adjacent"to the State Motor Pool site. Therefore, the proposed amendment
will not impact the provision of recreational facilities, nor will it affect access to existing or future
recreational facilities. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety
of economic. activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The proposed Plan designation for the subject 1.7 -acre parcel is Commercial. The Administrative Rule
for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand
of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands
Study is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. As
discussed below, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Eugene Commercial Lands Study. It
will have little real effect on the supply of commercial land. The proposed amendment would change
the property's plan designation from one that supports limited commercial use (High Density
ResidentiallMixed Use) to another that supports a wider range o.f commercial uses (Commercial). Both
designations would also allow high density residential construction. The additional designation of Nodal
Development, which does not change the base ,zone or densities,_ wOl:lld not change. As a result, the
potential change in the level of commercial use on this 1.7 acre parcel would have a relatively
insignificant impact on the total supply of commercial land.
The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study (1991) addresses the industrial land supply. The
subject site was not part of the industrial lands inventory; i.e., it was not counted as a potential site for
future industrial development or as needed to satisfy the city's 20-year industrial land supply. Lands
considered available for industrial uses are typically those which have an Industrial plan designation.
The subject parcel does not currently have an Industrial designation (but has an 1-2 zoning). Therefore,
the proposed plan amendment (residential to commercial) would have no effect on the supply of
available industrial land as predicted by the Industrial Lands Special Study.
The Eugene Commercial Lands Study contains several policies "applicable to the proposed amendment.
The applicant concludes that that Policies 2.0, 8.0, 17.0 and implementation strategies 17.1 and 17.3
apply (applicant's letter to City July 24, 2006). While the proposal is not inconsistent with those
policies, staff does not agree that those policies apply. However, a number of policies in the Study do
support a Commercial designation of the subject parcel. Applicable policies are discussed below.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6)
The proposed amendment t~ Commercial would not actively further the reuse and intensification
of existing commercial sites, as it opens up a new site to commercial development. However, to
the extent that the amendment maintains compact urban development in the downtown core, as
anticipated in the Downtown Plan, the proposal is not inconsistent with this policy. The
amendment may encourage reuse ofa parking lot (a low intensity "industrial" use) into a more
()regon~1otor Pool - Prelhninary Findings~ Scptclnbcr12, 2006
Page 4 of "I 3
compact urban uses, such as retail, commercial, housing, or a combination of these uses.,
Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community commercial areas rather
than additional major retail centers. (Policy 11)
The proposed amendment would encourage centralized commercial development in the
downtown area rather than in outlying major retail centers, and could promote the development
of other commercial areas downtown, such as the adjacent 5th Street Market. On its own, the
subject site, at 1.7 acres, is not large enough to support an "additional major retail center."
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the rest of
the city. (Policy 12)
The subject parcel is located in the downtown core, an area that both the Metro Plan and
Downtown Plan refinement plan envision as an area of compact, high density commercial and
residential development. The proposed amendment furthers this policy.
Eugene Downtown Plan policies also support a CommerciallNodal Development Designation for the
subject parcel (see findings under criterion (3)(b) below for further discussion of applicable Downtown
Plan policies. Specifically, Policy 2 in "Building a Downtown" states:
Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties,
such as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such
as C-2 or C-3. (Policy 2)
The existing parking lot is arguably an underutilized area. In addition, the Eugene 'Downtown
Plan identifies the subject property asa "Downtown Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
Approval of a plan amendment to CommerciallNodal Development is supported by the policies in the
Eugene Commercial Lands Study and the Downtown Plan. Based on the above discussion, the
amendment is consistent with 'Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for
needed housing units. The property affected by the proposed amendments was not included in the
supply of land available for residential development, as documented in the adopted 1999 Residential
Lands and Housing Study (Ordinance No. 20159, 1999). That study excluded from consideration as
"buildable land" vacant land that was owned by a public agency and not intended for residential
development. The subject property-has been in the ownership of the State of Oregon since 1980,
according to the applicant. Therefore, changing the land use designation from residential uses will not
affect the adopted residential lands inventory.
Based on fact that the amendment would have no effect on the adopted residential land supply, the
proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1 O.
2()06
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
The area affected by the amendments has long been located inside the city limits (annexed between 1864
and 1900). Adequate access to the City's storm water system, public wastewater lines, water and power
are available to the site. The existing level of public facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs
of existing and future development. The provision of this amendment does not affect the planning or
development of future public facilities or services. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The TPR states that when land use changes, including
amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect transportation facilities,
measures must be put in place to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function and
capacity of those transportation facilities. Several streets border the site affected by the proposed
amendments. Those streets are: Pearl Street, High Street, and 4th Avenue. On the south is the Southern
Pacific RR right of way. Pearl and High streets are' classified as Major Collectors on the City of Eugene
Street Classification Map, adopted in 1999. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation
Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is implemented at the
local level. Implementation of transportation system improvements specific to the doWntown area are
accomplished through the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
A determination of potential impacts on local transportation facilities is a prerequisite to approval. of the
proposed amendment from High Density Residential to Commercial. Pursuant to OAR 660-012-
0060(1), the State TPR requires a determination of which transportation facilities will experience a
"significant effect" as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what constitutes a
significant effect. A plan amendment is considered to significantly affect a transportation facility if, for
example, the amendment will reduce the performance of the transportation facility below the minimum
acceptable performance standard (often describ'ed in terms of Level of Service standards or
vehicle/capacity ratios). If a local government determines that an amendment would significantly affect
a transportation facility, the local government must put in place measures to assure that the allowed land
uses are consistent with the identified "function, capacity 'and performance standards" of the facility
((OAR 660-012-0060(1)). An example of such a measure is a minor street improvement. OAR 660-
012-0060(3) describes additional circumstances under which the City could approve the amendment,
including instances in which the applicant demonstrates that the existing transportation facility is already
performing below minimum acceptable performance standards and that the development resulting from
the proposed amendment mitigates the impacts in a manner that avoids further degradation of the
transportation facility.
The application materials submitted in response to Goal 12 are inconclusive. The applicant appears to
argue that the proposal complies with Goal 12 based on: 1) Council findings for the Downtown Plan
adoption; 2) the Nodal Development/Transit Oriented Development zoning of the area; and 3) the
Central Area Transportation Study (CATS).
()regon Motor Pool - Prelirninary Findings~ Septelnber 12~ 2006
Page 6 of 1 3
1) The applicant argues that the 2004 City Council findings related to the adoption of the Downtown
Plan are sufficient to demonstrate Goal 12 compliance for the current proposal (applicant's letter to
City dated June 8, 2006). The applicant argues that, since the Downtown Plan contains a policy
that specifically directs redesignation of the subject parcel, the same findings made for all
Downtown Plan policies can be transferred to this current redesignation action. Staff does not
concur with this argument.
The Downtown Plan has no land use diagram, and no redesignations or rezones were approved
concurrent with the Downtown Plan adoption. The Plan policy in question is: "Facilitate
downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface
parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3"
(Policy 2). Contrary to what the applicant suggests, this policy is not parcel-specific. It applies to
a number of unspecified properties downtown that are "underutilized," some.ofwhich may also be
surface parking lots at any given time. While this policy does apply to the subject par~el, it did not
have the effect of redesignating the site. It is a general policy directing that underutilized properties
downtown should be redesignated, but does not itself redesignate those properties.
The applicant notes that the Council findings for the Downtown Plan stated that "No change in the
functional classification ofthe.se streets is intended to result from this Plan..." and that "the Plan
does not, by its adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would result in inconsistencies
with the functional classification of a transportation facility..." (applicant's letter to City July 24,
2006). However, those earlier findings do not obviate the requirement for the current proposal to
comply with OAR 660-012-0060(1), which requires a determination of "significant effects" on
transportation facilities as a result of the current proposed plan amendment. 'A change from a High
Density Residential designation to a Commercial designation can result in allowable uses that
would increase the potential number of vehicle trips, and/or change the distribution of vehicle trips
(different locations, times of day, etc.), with potentially significant effects on transportation
facilities. Transportation effects may be complicated by the potential queuing of vehicles at the
adjacent railroad tracks. It is equally possible that the proposed amendment does not significantly
affect any existing or planned transportation facility.
Although general Downtown Plan policies were acknowledged as consistent with Statewide goals,
that acknowledgement is insufficient to conclude that the redesignation of a specific parcel without
further analysis is consistent with Statewide goals. Staff does not agree that 2004 Downtown Plan
findings are sufficient for the current proposal, and finds that additional information is needed to
demonstrate the proposal's consistency with Statewide Goal 12.
2) Although the subject parcel is within aNodal Development area and Transit Oriented
Development overlay zone, and f\lture development will meet the multi-modal goals of these
designations (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006), having those designations in itself is
not sufficient evidence that the land use change will have no significant effect on transportation
facilities.
3) CATS, an implementation plan, identifies future transit routes and contains policies that promote
an improved pedestrian system (applicant's revised findings August 21, 2006). However, these
strategies are not specific.to the proposed amendment, and CATS does not evaluate whether the
allowable uses on the site would have a significant effect on a transportation facility, nor does it
identify specific measures that would mitigate identified impacts stemming from a plan
amendment pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1).
To meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060 it is necessary to evaluate the proposed amendment
relative to criteria outlined in the TPR used to determine "significant effect." According to City of
Eugene Public Works Engineering, this requires data such as trip generation, trip distribution and
assignment, existing levels and patterns of traffic/travel to and from the site and the level of service of
each nearby (upstreamor downstream) intersection, existing and planned access(es) and comparative
analysis of each of these under existing plan designation(s) and proposed plan designation(s). Empirical
data on a wide range of land uses is available from the Trip Generation report published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, which is the industry standard utilized nationwide to determine traffic
impacts of development. Once the local government has determined "significant effect," there are a
number of remedies for applications that to enable plan amendments to comply with the TPR.
However, the applicant does not provide data on which transportation facilities, if any, will be
significantly affected, nor how the proposed amendment will impact the level of service of the these
facilities. Therefore, there is not sufficient information in the submittal to demonstrate that the plan
amendments proposed will assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity and performance standards of existing and planned transportation facilities, pursuant to OAR
660-012-0060(1). Based on this, staff cannot make positive findings that the proposal complies with
Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The amendment does not specifically impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal
13 does n9t apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
The amendment does not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
already within the City limits. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic,
historical, agricultu'ral, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the
Willamette River Greenway. .
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources.. Coastal Shorelands.. Beaches and Dunes.. and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property effected by
these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendment will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
()regonr\1otor Pool - Prelilninary Findings, Septclnber 12, 2006
Page 8 of 13
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 1.7 acres of land from High Density
ResidentialIMixed Us~/Nodal Development to Commercial/Nodal Development will not create an
internal conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan. No text or other diagram changes are necessary
to ensure internal consistency with the proposed diagram amendments; adoption of this amendment will
not make the Metro Plan internally consistent.
Consistency with Metro Plan Dolicies:
The applicant concludes that "...findings were made at the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan. The
change of the Metro Plan map, when that change is only to make it conform with the text of the adopted
refinement plan, and now the Metro. Plan, should not require new findings of Metro Plan consistency"
(applicant's letter to City June 8, 2006). Staff does not concur with the applicant's conclusion. That the
refinement plan was earlier found to be consistent with the Metro Plan is not sufficient evidence that the
specific plan amendment proposed is consistent with the Metro Plan. Staff presents findings below as
evidence that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with the policy direction
contained iil the Metro Plan. The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to the requested
amendment:
Residential Land Use and Housing Element:
Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in
proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. (policy A.II)
Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities. (Policy A.I9)
The current Metro Plan designation of the parcel is High Density ResidentialIMixed Use/Nodal
Development. The Metro Plan also'contains the following cautionary statement related to the residential
land supply: "While all medium and high density allocations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram may
not be needed during the planning period, there protection for these uses is important because available
sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited" (pg. II-G-3). However, the proposed amendment
has been found to have no actual effect on the buildable residential land supply (as noted in findings for
Goal 10 under EC 9.7730(3)(b) above). In addition, the proposed designation ofCommercial/Nodal
Development would accommodate both multi-unit residential and commercial uses.
The applicant claims that a High Density Residential designation is not appropriate for the subject
parcel. . This is due to the fact that:
1) The parcel is surrounded by commercial, industrial and office uses (applicant's letter to City July
24, 2006 pg. 5). Staff does not agree that this makes the site unsuitable for High Density
Residential Uses, which are anticipated in the Downtown Plan and often located within compact
commercial centers and next to office uses. The site is also proximate to other housing, parks, and
other amenities for residents.
2) The applicant states that the parcel is also not suited for residential uses due to the parcel's
configuration. The parcel is only 130 feet deep on the west (Pearl Street) side, with the longest
boundary along the railroad (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). It is not clear how this
configuration makes the site dif~cult to develop in high density housing. The site is substantially
larger than that accommodating the TATE Condominiums on Olive Street or the Aurora Housing
building at 11th Avenue and Oak, for examples.
3) The case is made that the subject parcel is unlikely to develop into high density housing due to its
location adjacent to the railroad tracks (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3). Noise and
vibration from the rail use would conflict with residential use. The application materials also state
that affordable housing would be the most likely high density residential use for such a site and, as
such, it would not qualify under HUD rules since the noise levels would be deemed unacceptable
for residences "(State of Oregon letter July 16, 2003 submitted as background). In addition, the
applicant concludes that the corresponding high density residential zoning (R-3 or R-4), which
would require the development of 30 units on the site and on-site parking, would be difficult for
that site. Under the Eugene land use code, a high density residential designation would typically
require minimum densities of 20-30 unit/acre (however, on-site parking would not be required by
the land use code, as the parcel is located in a Parking Exempt Area (Map 9.6410(4)(a)). Staff
concurs that noise mitigation for residential development in such a location could be costly,
particularly the per/unit cost for lower densities. The applicant states that the only commercial
development that would be allowed under R-3 or R-4 zoning is neighborhood commercial (C-1)
development, which would not be financially feasible (written statement April 13, 2006 pg. 3).
Under the land use code, R-3 or R-4 zoning allows limited, typically C-1-style development. A
Commercial designation with commercial zoning would allow a much wider range of commercial
uses.
Whether or not it is likely that the subject parcel would be redeveloped to High Density Residential uses,
or how financially feasible it is to do so is not made clear the application.' Nonetheless, a diagram
change to a CommerciallNodal Development designation is not inconsistent with Metro Plan policies
related to residential land use.
Economic Element:
lnc'rease the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial uses correlating the
effective supply in terms or suitability and availability with the projects of demand. (Policy B.6)
The subject parcel, a small City of Eugene-owned parking area to the northwest, and the EWEB
property immediately east of the site are the only sites zoned Light Medium Industrial (1-2) in this area.
None of these are in active industrial use. On the north and west side, adjacent properties are in office
use. The 5th Street Market commercial area is to the south. Given these adjacent uses and zoning, it is
more likely that there will be a demand for commercial uses, rather than industrial uses, on these
properties
Consistency with applicable refinement plan:
The proposed amendment is also internally consistent to the extent that it is consistent with applicable
refinement plans. Policies in the Downtown Plan encourage both high density residential and
commercial development in the downtown area, as noted in the staff findings related to Zone Change
criterion 9.8865(2).(discussed below). A change to a Commercial designation for this parcel would
accommodate both commercial and .residential uses, and would be internally consistent with the Metro
Plan and its refinement plan policies.
()regonMotor Pool - Prelitninary Findjngs~ Septclnber 12~ 2006
Page 10 of 1 3
Zone Chane:e
The proposed zone change is from Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development overlay
zone (1-2/TD) to Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development overlay zone and Nodal
Development overlay zone (C-2/TDIND). The proposed zoning of C-2 allows neighborhood
commercial development, community commercial development and residential development (no
minimum or maximum densities specified).
Eugene Code Section 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Zone
Change.
(1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The
written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram
where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment from
High Density ResidentialIMixed Use/Nodal Development to a designation of Commercial/Nodal
Development. The findings related to consistency with the Metro Plan under EC 9.7730(3)(b) above,
are incorporated herein by reference.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In
the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan
controls.
The applicable refinement plan is the Eugene Downtown Plan (adopted April 2004). The Downtown
Plan does not provide a land use diagram, instead relying on the Metro Plan diagram. Therefore, the
land use designations between the two plans are consistent. The following policies trom the Eugene
Downtown Plan are applicable to this amendment:
"Strong Regional Center" policies:
Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and
diversity to create a downtown, urban environment. (Policy 2)
Existing use of the subject property is low density surface parking, which does not have the
qualities of density, vitality, etc. envisioned for the downtown area. The proposed change from
Industrial (1-2) to Commercial (C2) could promote redevelopment with these characteristics. In
addition, the Eugene Downtown Plan identifies the subject property as a "Downtown
Development Opportunity Area" (Map 1).
"Building a Downtown" policies:
Facilitate downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties,
such as surface parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such
as C-2 or C-3. (Policy 2)
The proposed zone change furthers this policy direction. Currently, the property is a surface
parking lot zoned Industrial (1-2). It is the type of "underutilized" downtown property that this
policy was specifically crafted to address. A zon~ change to Commercial (C-2) would support
implementation of this policy.
"Living Downtown" policies:
Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of
income levels and ownership opportunities. (Policy 1)
The current industrial zoning of the site does not allow multi-unit housing. A zone change from
Industrial (1-2) to Commercial (C2) makes multi-unit housing possible at this site, furthering this
policy goal. The parcel is included in the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Area Boundary
(MUPTE) and in the Vertical Housing Tax Exemption Zone Area (Map 2), where development.
qualifies for incentives for high density housing downtown.
Reinforce residential use in neighborhoods abutting the commercial core to help contain
commercial activity in downtown and maintain the historic character and livability of adjacent
neighborhoods. (Policy 2)
The proposed zone change would have a neutral to positive effect on neighborhoods abutting the
commercial core. In making additional land available downtown for higher density
development, the proposal promotes the containment of higher density housing and commercial
uses to the downtown area, preserving surrounding neighborhoods. In doing so, the zone change
would be consistent with this policy.
The policies in the Downtown Plan arguably support both high density residential and commercial
development of the subject parcel. However, while residential uses on this site would be supported by
the Plan, there is strong policy basis for a commercial designation, as noted in B-D Policy 2: "Facilitate
downtown redevelopment by re-designating and rezoning underutilized properties, such as surface
parking lots, to a commercial land ~se designation and a commercial zone such as C-2 or C-3. " A
C-2 zone does not mandate residential development, but allows a mix of commercial and residential
development. Based on the above discussion, staff finds that the proposed zone change to C-2/ND is
consistent with the policies in the Downtown Plan. Further, the zone change will not remove the Transit
Oriented Development overlay zone from the subject property, and will add the Nodal Development
overlay zone anticipated in the 2004 adoption of the Downtown Plan, all actions that support the
compact, mixed use land patterns envisioned in the Downtown Plan.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the
proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities
and services.
The following key urban facilities and services, as defined in the' Metro Plan, are currently available to
the subject property, or can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner ,to serve future developmel}t:
wastewater service, stormwater service, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police
protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication
facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. Details related to how/when/where those facilities
and services are provided remain to be resolved in the context of any future development proposal.
In regards to transportation, the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a) under Statewide Planning Goals 12,
above, are incorporated herein by reference.
()regon Motor Pool - PrelhninaryFindjngs~ Septelnber 12, 2006
Page ] 2 of ] 3
(4) The proposed zone" change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out
for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements.
F or this proposed zone change, there are no applicable siting requirements as referenced in the above
criterion. The commercial zone siting requirements at EC 9.2150 only affect properties proposed for C-
1 or C-4 zoning. There are no siting requirements in the Eugene Code for the Nodal Development/ND
overlay zone.
(5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), theproperty owner shall
enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a
natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years.
The above criterion is not applicable, as the proposed zone change does not include application of the
NR zone.
ATTACHMENT K
40 04080 Feet
~-
Note: This map is based on imprecise data;
locations of features are approximate.
N
+
ATTAC'HMENT L
APR 2 1 2006.
C..::.~~~~..
. ~1I i ·
Planning & Development
Planning .
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Qreg()n 97401
(541) 682-53n
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
. .
to
METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMoENT
APPLICA TI'ON
! '
Please complete the following application checklist. ONote that additional infolTi1ation may be required upon
further review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. [fyou have any questions
about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Infonnation Center, phone (541)
682-5377~ 99 West loth Avenue, Eugene. '
Check the apllropriate box(es):
o Plan Text Change
~ Plan Diagraln Challge
L.ist all. Assessorts Map and Tax Lot numbers of the 'property included in the request. . Please indicate if
only a portion of a lot is included in the request and include any additional map and tax lot numbers for
. subject property. Also, inclu~e existing and proposed Metro Plan Designations. '
Assessor's Map Tax Lot Existin2 Desi2nation Proposed Desi2nation
17~O3-30-44 8900 HDR/MU/ND \ Commercial/NO'
'-,
Street Address (if available):
445 Pearl Street
Existing Use(s) of the Property:
. Parking Lot
Proposed Use(s) of the Property:
Commer~ial
Exis.ting Zoning:
1-2/ND Light Medium Industrial/Nodal Development
Is this Metro Plan Amendment being reviewed toncurrently with another land use application?
o 8. Yes, applIcation me nwttber: 0 []No 0 0 o.
FilinS! Fee
IE A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is
adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center
to determine the required fee or check.website www.eugeneolanning.org
Metropolitan Plan .Amendnlent
Last Updated:. 7/2004
Page] of2
: "
Written Statement
~. A "vritten statementlisting rel~vant Statewide Planning Goals and demonstrating that the requested change
, satisfies the approval criteria in the Eugene Code, Section 9.7739(3). Describe any unchanged portion of the
plan your aInenchnent Dlay effect.
S~e attached.
'Information Reauired for ProDosed Plan Text 'Chang:es
~ Map jndic~tingthe property included in the request and' adjacent streets and aUeys',
See att~ched. .
~ Vicinity map indicating the general area and allowing easy identification of the proPerty.
S.ee attached. .
Note: This is not,a.complete list of requirements~ 'Additional information may be required after
further ,review in order to adequately, address the required criteria of approval.
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands the submittal' requirements
outHnerl herein, and t~at h~she understands that omission of any listed item may.(ause delay in
processing this application. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied i.n this
application is comp.lete and accurate to the best of my (our) k~owledge.
OWNER (Also the Applicant?~ Yes 10 No):
Nanl~ (print):
State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services
William Foster, Administrator Phone: 503-3.78-2855, Ex't. 252
Address:
155 Cottage Street "NE
City /State/Zip:
Signature:
Salem, OR 97301
/3;~--, }c~
... ~.
APPLICANTD I APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIV~ ~(Check one):
Name (print):
James W. Spickerman
Company /Organization:
Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott LLP
Address:
P.O.' Box 1147'
, 97440-1147 .
City/StatelZip: Eugene, OR E-mail (ifapplicable):~pickeziM.n@orbuslaw.com
Phone: 034
Signature:
Note: This is complete list of require ditionaJ information may be required after further
review in order to adequately address the applicable ap.proval criteria.
Metropolita.fi Plan Amendment
Last Updated: 1/2004
Page.20f2
I 1
. WRITIEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR' POOL SITE
REGARDING: 445 Pearl Street, map 17-03-30-44, tax lot 8900
The Stale of Oregon Department of Administrative Services, owner of the
State. of Oregon former motor pool site, at 445 Pe.arl Street, seeks a
modification of the Metropolitan Plan Diagram to change the designation of the
1.718-acre parking lot at 4th Avenue and High Street from High Density.
Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development (HDR/MU/ND) to
. Commercial/Nodal Development (Commercial/ND) to cornply with adopted
policies of the Euge~e Oowritown Plan.
Pursuant to EC 9.7750(4), the refmement plan land use diagram will be
aut9matically amended if the amendment t9 the Metro Plan Diagram is
approved.
. .
I. . B.ackgro~Dd of Proposed Metro Plan. Amendment.
A. I;:>escrip~on of ~ite
This 1.718-acre site is bounded on the east by Righ Street, the north by ·
4th Avenue, the west by Pearl Street and 1J:1e south by railroad tracks.
The site was purchasetl by the State of Oregon in 1980 from.ldeal Basic
Industries, which acquired title as Ideal Cement Company. Until recent years,
. the site was used as the motor pool site for the parking and fueling of S1:;a.te- .
owned vehicles. Since that tiIne, the fuel tanks have been removed and the site
has been used occasionally for parking of State and other vehicles. The
parking lot is presently-rented to 5th Street Market on a month-to-month basis
for supplementary parking for the 5th Street Market area.
B. Land: Use Designations and Uses in the Area
Att~ched are the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1. .. Metro Plan Diagram for the area. i . . APR 2 1 2006
Exhibit 2. Zo"ning map for the' area. 4 ,
Exhibit 3. Map of surrounding land uses. L.. _~ .
While the Metro Plan Diagram designates the site HDR/MU IND; the site
is zoned 1-2, Light Medium Industrial. It is presumed that the industrial
WRITIEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORf OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTQR' POOL SITE - 1 '
'; 1
zoning continues from the site's earlier use and the former industrial nature of
this area. Presently, the only other industrially Plan designated or zoned
parcels in ~is area are the EWEB property to the east, across High Street,and
a small tax lot northwest of the subject site; Other than the EWEB property,
the site is surrounded by properties zoned S-F, Fifth Avenue Special Area Zone. .
On the north and west side, adjacent properties are In office use. The railroad
tracks border the property. on the south, with the 5th Street Market ~
development further to the south.
. As indicated above, the' Metro Plan Diagram designates this site
HDR/MU IND. The basis for thi& classification i~ unclear but it'is noted that
properties north of 4th Ave~ue are within the Whiteaker Plan area and are
design~ted for Mixed Use."
'The applicable refinement plan is the Eugene Downtown Plan, adopted
April 12, 2004. In adopting that plan, the Eugene Planning Commission and
City Council did not alter the Metro Plan I?iagram with the exception of placing
the Nodal Development overlay on the Downtown. Plan area and changing the
land use designation. of the. Courthouse District from Industrial to Commercial
designation. While the Downtown Plan Diagram wa,s not altered to a great .
degree, the text of the Downtown Plan was completely revised, including
adoption of.a number of specific policies to. guide development in the downtown
area.
As indicated at page 1 of the Eugene Downtown Plan, the "central
them.es" of.the Plan were to reinforce downtown as a strong" regional center and
strengthen downtown as a cultural center, a center o('community life.
Chapter II of the Plan, 'entitled"Building .a Dowhtown,>> contains a
'section,. "Facilitating Development," where" it is stated:
~... All zoning regulations for downtown sho~ld be reviewed.to look
for ways to simplify and expedite development downtown. In "
,addition there are underused and vacant sites throughout
downtown. Some of these parcels are not designated for
commercial"use in the Metro Plan, or are designated commercial
but not commercially zoned. These sites, which include surface
parking lots doWntown, need to be redesignate~ or. rezoned ~o a1lo~
for the commercial development envisioned in t~is plan." (p. 13)
Consistent with 'this statement, the Plan adopts as a Policy the following:
"3. Facilitate dowri.town developmentby.re-designating and
'rezoning underutilized properti~s, such as surface parking lots, to
a commercia11and use designation and a commercial zone such as
C-2 orC-3." (p. 14)
WRITTEN STATEME~T IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 2
The "State Motor Pool site" Is specified as area 3 on the map of A Dozen
Downtown Development Opportunity Areas at page 45 of the Downtown Plan.
As a parking lot within the Downtown Plan area, the subject site is
. appropriate for commercial designation to facilitate commercial zoning and
development. While the Eugene Downtown. Plan did not itself change plan
.designations, it gave clear direction that those changes should take place to
encourage~he development envisioned by the Plan. .
C. Inappropriateness of the Existing Metro Plan designation for High
Density Residential Use
. 0'
. The location and configuration of the motor pool site would make.
. extremely unlikely the site's utilization for high density housing. Noise and
vibration from the rail use would conflict with residential use. The site would
also be difficult to develop in high density housing because it has only 130 feet.
of depth on the Pearl Street side, while sharing its longest boundary with the
railroad right-of-way.
Assuming the R-3 or R-4 zoning designation .wasapplied to the property
to carry out the present Plan designation, a minimum of 30+ units would be
required to be developed on ,the site, as well as on-site parking. Given the
location of the site, such development is highly unlikely. .
Unless a special zo~ing district was developed to c.arry out the Mixed Use
portion of the Plan designation for the site, the only commercial development
, allowable in an R -3 and R -4 districts would be Neighborhood Commercial (C-l)
development. This commercial development would be subject to PUD
procedures. and would be required :to be shown to serve the residents of the
residential portion of the development. Such commercial development would
not be financially feasible. .
As indicated above, the site is not adjacent to any properties that are
likely to be developed into High DensitY Residential use, both due to the
surrounding zoning and to existing office use of the properties to the north and
west. The Plan designation and. zoning for commercial use will allow the site to
be developed in conjunction with the existing 5th Avenue Special.District zoned
properties. The existing office uses on the' north and west side will buffer the
residential area further. to the north area from this commercial use area.
D. Conclusion
The Metro Plan Land Use Diagram should be amended to comply with
the specific policy direction of the Eugene Downtown Plan. The site should be
designated Commercial/ND on the Metro Plan Diagram.
WRITTEN'~TATEME~T IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 3 .
II. Criteria for Evaluating Metro Plan Amendment
, The criteria are:
EC 9. 7730(3)(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide
planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. .
EC 9.7730(3)(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make theMetro Plan
internally inconsistent.
A. EC 9.7730(a), the requirement that the. amendment be .
consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals is
addressed as follows:
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that
. insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in allphases of the
pla'nning process. .
9
The City has LCDC acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement
which insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all. phases of the
planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. ...The
application is subject to public notification artd hearing processes adopted by
the City of Eugene .in EC 9.7720 and 9. 7735 as modified by the Eugene City
Council underEC 9.7750(1), and in EC 9.7520. Th~ pr9posed amendment will
be considered at public hearing before the Eugene Planning Commission.
Notice of the Planning Commission. public. hearing will be published in the
Register-Guard and mailed to affected property owners, to owners and.
occupants of properties within 300 feet of properties, to persons who requested
notice and to the affected neighborhood associations. Following the
recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council will hold a
duly noticed public hearing to consider approval, modification or denial of the
proposed amendment. These processes afford ample opportunity for citiZen
involvement consistent with Goal 1. .
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of
land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and
actions.
This application to amend the Metro Plan Diagram is consistent with the
Plan amendment provisions fOUlid in the Metro Plan, as codified in the Eugene
Code. The Metro Plan is an acknowledged comprehensive plan, pursuant to
provisions specified by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
This application, and process for reviewing the requested amendment, .
follows procedures outlined in the Eugene Code. The amendment, therefore, is
consistent with'Goal 2.
WRITI'~N STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 4 .
. Goal 3 .;. Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
, .
This goal is not applicable. to the. Plan amendment, as the. subject
property and the action do not affect any agricultural plan designation or use.
Goal 4 - Forest. Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest . land
base and to protect the $tate's forest economy by.makfng possible
economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing
and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land
. cons.istent with sound management of soil,. air, water, andfish and wildlife
resources and to provide for reCreational opportunities and agriculture.
,. .
This goal is not applicable to the proposed Plan amendment, as the
subject site does not affect any forest plan designation. There are no forest
lands related to. this application. This goal, therefore, is also not relevant and
the amendment does not affect the Metro Plan compliance with Goal 4.
. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources:
. To conserve open space'and protect natural and scenic resources.'
In review of the Goal 5 inventory map, the subject property clearly does
. not contain any Goal 5 resources, therefore, the proposed amendment does not
affect Metro Plan compliance with GoalS.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve
-the .quality ~fthe air, water ~nd lci1J,d resources. of the state. -
The subject site has long been within the City limits. and served by all
seivices needed to facilitate urban development (wastewater, stormwater,
transportation, etc.). Development of the site in commercial use will be .
. addressed through applicable land use regulations and review procedures and
. wiU be required to comply with all local, state, and federal standards and
guidelines regarding construction, discharges and stotmwater. runoff. The
amendment, therefore, does not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disa$ters and Hazards: To protect life and
property fro'm natural disasters and hazards.
The site is not located within any known area of natural disaster or
hazard. Hazards such as ea~thquakes and' severe winter stotIns can be
mitigated at the time of development based on accepted, building codes and .
building techniques. The proposed designation will not result in development
. in areas normally associated with natural disast~r or the damage and loss of
.life normally associated thereWith. The amendment, therefore, is consistent
with Statewide . Planning Goal 7.
WRITIEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICA~ION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 5
. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs:. To satisfy ther~creational needs of the citizens
of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of
' necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. .
Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to the citizens of the
State. The proposed designation will not impact provision for recreation
facilities. Access to recreation opportunities will not be affected by the
proposed ainendment. The amendment, therefore; is consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 .:... Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities
throughout the state'[or a variety of economic actiVities vital to the health,
w~lfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The administrative rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division
9) requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial and
industrial land relative to community economic objectives. The Eugene
Commercial Lands Study and the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory and
Policy Reports are acknowledged for their compliance with the requirements of
Goal 9 and its administrative 'rule. .
Fmdings adopted in support of the Downtown Plan confirm that the Plan
is intendeq to support the intensity of , commercial uses downtown. The .
Downtown Plan specifically addresses the need. to capitalize on development
opportunities and particularly calls out surface parking lots as a type of
opportunity that should be facilitated by plan:. and zoning redesignation. The
proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendment is consistent with the Eugene
Downtown Plan, '8. refme~ent plan, therefore, consistent with Statewide
PI~ning Gqal 9. .
Goal1~ ~ Housing: To pro'vide f~'r the housing needs of citizens of the ~tate.
. . The DoWntown Plan specifically encourages a variety of housing and
home ownershIp opportunities in the downtown core and on the edges of the
Downtown Plan' area. The: Downtown Plan does not contemplate that
residential use should take place on this site, rather the text indicates it should
be designated for commercial use.
As discussed above, the site above is not appropriate for High Density
Residential use due to its setting in terms of surrounding land use .
designations and uses and, particularly, the f~ct that it is adjacent to railroad
.tracks. The commercial designation should be understood to be part of the
overall nodal development area which will, ultimately, include" residential units.
WRITI'EN ~TATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 6
, , ,
Goal 11 - PubHcFacilitie.s and Services: . To plan and develop a ti~ely,
orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities mid servicf;!s to serve
as a framework for urban and rural development.
. The site has long been within the City limits and served by public
facilities which will be adequate to serve the. needs of existing and future
developme~t. The plan amendm~nt is, therefore" consistent with Statewide
Planning .Goal 11. '.'
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and .
ec()nomic transpo~ation system. .
, .
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR,
OAR 660-12). TransPlanprovides the mutual policy framework through which
the.TPR is enacted at the local.level. The Downtown Plan. supports a safe,
convenient and economic tra.I)sportation system and. is consistent with '
Statewide Pla~ning Goal 12. Transpian states in part:
"Provide for' trarisit-supportive land use patterns. and development,
including higher intensity, .transit-oriented development near ...
.' downtown areas; and developm'ent and redevelopment.in
designate~ areas that are. or ..coul4 h.e well served by existing or
planned transit." (TransPlan Land Use Policy #3.)
The subject site is part of a nodal area and near transportation systems~
The Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) adopted May ~4, 2004
specifically addresses this area and the 2004 update of CATS. specifically states
that it is focused on changes to the ,transportation system that result f~om the
update to the Eugerie Downtown Pl~ (see p. .6). At page 61, the trahsit system
discussion map indicates the partion of High Street adjacent to the property is
to .be a Downtown Shuttle Service route and potential future BRT route.
The Tran~portation Planning Rule req~ires that amendments to
. ackn.owledgeci comprehensive plans which significantly affect a transportation
f~cility shall assure "that the allowed land uses' ar~ . consistent with' 'the .
identified" function, capacity and performance standards.(e.g., level of service,
volume to capacity ratio, etc.) ~f the faci~ity. In adopting the 'Downtown Plan,
the Council found that the Downtown Plan and the related code amendments
would not significantly' affect a transportation facilitY since they do none of the
things desc~ibed in the TPR (OAR 660-0 12-q060(a)-(d)). .
In the Downtown Plan, four streets are proposed to be characterized .as
"great streets:" Broadway, Willamette, 5th Avenue and 8th Avenue. The plan
proposes that design' standards artd gujdelines be drafted for each street to
emphasize pedestrian amenities" and to attract pedestrian friendly
development, in an effort to create a "walkable" downtown. The findings state:
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 7
UN 0 ch~ge ',in the functionai. classi.fication of these streets is '
intended to result from thisPlart. in addition~ no 'changes are '
-proposed to the ,standards th'lt ~mple~ent the functional' '
classification system. The plaa does not, by its, 'adoption,. allow
, types of levels of land uses which would result in inconsistencies
with the functional classification of ~ transportation facility, ,or
reduce the performance standards of the facility."
The proposed amendment to the landus€ diagram, to make it consistent
with the adopted Downtown Plan is, therefore, consi$ent with Statewide ..
Planning Goal 12. .
, ~:
Goal 13 -Energy CODservatio~: To conserve energy'.
. '
The change in plan diagram designation is consistent with the ;-"
refmementplan, the Eugene Downtown Plan, which .supports.co~pact urtlan
level development in coordination with transit cOnIiectivity and alte;nate modes
of transportation. The amendment, therefore, 'is consistent with $.tatewide
Pl~nning' Goal.13.' '\.
Goa114- Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient tTansitionfrom
' rural to urban la'nd use.; ,
. No property is being converted from rurai to urban use~.The Il,~~:ssary
. urban services are in place for this property. Therefo~e, the Metro pf5h)
. diagram amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14.
Goal 1~ - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, Conserve, enhance and.
maintain the natural, scenic; h~torical, agricu.ltural, economic and
recreational ,qualities of lands along the Willamette Ri'ver as the Willamette
River Greenway.
. This proposed diagram amendment \Yill'not affect the greenway permit
requirements for land lying within the greenway.. The amendment in 'no way
affects the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. .
, Goals 16.through 19 (Estuarine Resources"Coastal Shorelands, Beaches
and Dunes, and Ocean Resources): . .
There are. no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources
related to the property involved in the amendment.. The Statewide Planning.
Goals 16 through 19, therefore, do not apply.
.r~. ~........'"
WRITIE~ STATEMENT IN suppoRT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLlCATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 8
. ~
..,;
.)
.' ,
.. ." . .: .
,.... '" {::"',,."::" .
" ,"
! <~::.'
..:' .'
t~' , '. : :;1:,.
. "~' .':~' . T '
.: ~.:..
B. The requirement that adoption of the amendment Dot Dlake .
. the Metro Plan internally inconsistent is' addressed as follows:
At the time of adoption of the Downtown Plan, fmdings were made that
. Downtown Plan was consistent with the Metro Plan. The adoption of the
. amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram will result in a Metro Plan Diagram
cOllsistent with. the text of the applicable refinement plan, the Eugene
,Downtown Plan."By virtue ofEC 9.7750(4), the amendment to the Metro Plan
diagram will automatically amend the Downtown Plan land use diagram
rendering it consistent with the Downtown Plan's text and the amended Metro
Plan Diagram.
Dated: April13, 2006
J s . S.pickennan'
Special Assistant Atto
for the State of Oregon
.'-'" '.
. ,
.,.' " "
.. ....
.,,' .t.
'. \',::, '.'.
.:' :. .
. WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
.. :~rATE 'OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 9.
:.....
I J r
I . I
Exhibit '1 , .'
/~ . ".,
APR 2 1 2006 . .
". . . .
".
E::[ ~ I
1
r
~ .":Uetro Plan D~Dt. -..
--~: ~.. ..' .... ~.
,. :.
>-- L..:.::L 1 ~ hi
~ m. 3RD~r91 J ..'!
.E:E:3~Wi ..:
"~~~~'B.:..:.'.
, "':'.,... "~ '.:.
. ...
:""1 :'.t:.J. '"
--
I---
m
l
~
. J
t.~ .
~(
. y--
-" )
u
. . , ...
..' . ;.. . ;:= ~ .....:l .. " :.. .
.', .:, .
.''.: ,.
~
rr1.. .;
rf.
~-
f 1 ,
\~.
rg .~ .:~~~ '~;<..r~ :'~:.."':'_:'~~ }'~ ~,\,~1
C3,.tc- 7.F.' ':.17 ~ 1P~~I?'~ .,~. :..
r-~~~.~F~;::~..~; 'j;~~.~~ :~:~'..r:~.
;; ~ .. r:J;....:~ ?r,.: r.7 ~ (j (; 0 j... ~ 7"'.'
- .? ~..~?~ :.7L....~L.-pFf /.:: ,. .'
- J-.tr '';1'~ ~;.t'.~~7'Cl~~~.t? ~~~,I. '.
..... :l ~~ . ~ ~ v~ ~ V'~~
.~ ~. :..: ~ ~ ~ ,""'" '/: " :
.....J. ~ '_'" ,,-;7 7.... .... J'.. ", .... ....:.,. ~ ~. ." . .' :". ." ,..
~I rrL- ~:....c:;: 1J1.:t."~ ",f-"'" /:;7...r/'r~ ,,;;r:e;..,. ~ V,.
u..J:; In.......- /~ '/' ~i-- ~ I-/."J'r~t.'" A2"'~...../ ;/ .
~ ~~~::=t~;~I~,..~;3if~::t:;:;C" . .'
.:. .7"./ ..... --:;7, "".... " ..?""'7..' .... /' ..... 7 ....... ;/ . .
~ U F'''-:7~ /~V /~V--,7 ~~.;L>-;v:.;,~'-rP[/V,~~/"'" ~... ...
rt1~. 1"''/./ ~:""I/ j7 / =", ~~..L,,~ ./ .~~ I..-'t/....;r- ~ ..' "- .
l- j!. .~~~V /~~V v:Z: ~. .JI' ~l7 (R V ~ -7 ::r:! "'
-, I "J ~ " V"" r7 L... ~ r.....7 t/::::... V'::!HI' ,..............
~ ""~. "7.. "7 ~ /' ./ .... ./ ?: ....."7 ~7'7 .....1'./ ..
V ........iVi--V7 ..? ./ y~....~ ~"'.6 :7'/1.--10.....> 1_ ~[T.....-::~.~-
I . ! ~ V' .........z..,. v........................ .I' ry"......... J7. .I' /".. ....'/ ~ V ....... ~ I
=, I_~ ~......~:'" ~L.-V": ~L;-~..ii v:: .~~7~v::>.... I .
I- ,. · boo< r y 17 /' v J' L-1'.~ ~.........: .~"7 I.-- '/' . .. . . L "-:-
~~~nilf ~~ :~:! t1l1~t .1 IE r
: ..f r !:h tTr-" u... I .1 .~
" g . Plan gesignations
. r:r: . e;a MaP'ReIaIIfND
. ~ ,....... r'\::" or ;;.;.. I([ . ~
-' -- -- 1 -L: -- t;. BSl Parks & Open SpaoeINO
T ~ ~ ~ ~ I H h I1=l r I I r=r tTI= :II. E3 High DensIty ResidenliaVND
11r-:;-" .. UIAA f\afteaH..'O~-..f.Sat _ MU/ND
F:l..J - I-L- ._......_, ~IU
r--.- (*' p~perties redesignated from Heavy Industrial :=: ~ MecIitm Denslty ResidentiaIIND
} -=- to Commerclal April 12, 2004. to. .. Government & EducationlNO
T T. II .
I . I _ ~ -.- .rD I /1 f-- . Heavy IndustriaIIND
! --, ,- ~ d ~ JJ--=1 /-.-.=l I- f a-:::l I a5:=...... Downtown Study Boundaly
I~ I T r '-:L-J B:L.J H; ~'T ~ __ ..... .
:~IT 2- __ ~~~ I 1T~. ~ rn ~ ~:
! I h1 rF H)" I rckilb tjL ~~. rn 01..
c
If H .lfR. r
L.:lB r ~ ~l r T I
. ~ .
J
'I
...:.
.~....,t'
.. ......
..
ft
H
,
J:fT
r ]I" I
J.--.,:..:Ir 1
I 1 i ~r-, r---,,..
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 2
I
--= \i:t~~[(~"
~0 ~
1111
1-2 Light-Medium Industrial
1-3 Heavy Industrial
~. S-F Fifth Avenue Special Area Zone
APR 2 1 2006
I
: t.:: <; : ~ :.;.~
. 1:..::::t/i:::;
-1~___~I~~;~___ ,
.- - B -':.~:~:t;. - - - - ·
.~.,-'
<D ~ ::-./.._
, ,:~i', c
I . ......
I 1 .
I l
, I
." I ";
. , I
~
.~
"
. .'~~., :~~:'...;:-
~ .:j'
Exhibit 3
JW-
~~~.
ii
'\
e-'
~ -ij
~ nt . ~~
ij~ I 't
i <
\' \\.. W '" ",,", .-...
I pQ. 'J
~ .. -~. ~
(J !" ~ 0'
" Uo6I ;A ~.~ 0
~d ..~.o.
\0 ell --.:a ' .
O "tN
,.; :l~.
"". c.
C ::L":~
fIi..~'
..... .fIt . 0
AJ c- 3 e.
_ Go
--t . fIt.~;
::I: ....,
"" 4 ·
Q)
CO
o
o
en
...
o
o
*'
t"
.
""... '
~..
~~.
~.tn
f#
C'
.
n
i:i'
.1 a.
(.):.....
\0 rn. '-J
(>>.~
/.1.. ~
~ =.(..) . 0
· .... . 00 0
Q\\ : '00
~,
m'I'
t+ ·
...
g'.:..=-
~
'-J
i':)
o
o
t-. ....
f'
..
HIGH
'+~l
~
~.'
~---
It
..... ...
(7)
f\J
o
o
i
,
~
.
"
~u
en
U4f
o.
,0 ·
~
....
o
o
~
(CJ
C
o
E
'-I.
o .,
o f"
o ·
-
C"
,
'"
-
o
'j .... J
'\
~
i ':
~.
APR .2 1 2006
QO. (:t'
. ..'
. ,.- ...... .', '..... ..,.
i
r~i
I I
:1:1;
..:.::: ~~:;:I~,; ,
.:..~,; ~
....t. ~':":'-;.' a
'-J
01
o ~
o
'-J
~
o
, '-J
m
,
r
. ~. . .. ...-. ~ ~,
l>~~
-o~~ I
zr
9~(J) I
- ,." ~
r:'\
" I
.. · I
, ,
.
~)
C).--- '.
, ..
,;
. APR. .2. 1 2006
t_ .
-~'-~ .
loa.'
. 5 · I' ,
---______1 . +
-, r---------
I I
). II
.~.
,7--
;.
.
.
.,. .... 7
4000
,....
4_'
t t
SECOND
AVENUE
... .. ..... .. -:.
,:: : .... ... ,; t -,..
,~)j =:_, ;~ \ijl it).!
.
.~..
l~
.
,-.
"
\
'\ 4100
\
t 1-'
W.
W
Q:
I-
en
...
3800 3700
.,.
"0"
. ,
~
~
,
l.
.
.:
~
....
t HloJ
,~ 4200
.'
It ISO"'
r' 4600
.t .
. ~.",#
Y T .....
) .FOURTH
~
8,900\\ I \ \ \
I' \
-\-\~ ~\-~-~-
, c-..
'.... '"
~.I ~, 1~~. ~ .
. 2 · I 1ft
:t: : ~--- ~~ifiim;-~'~
~ ~ J 1 0 869El if
:I: '- --~. 4.i
.. 61;'r --.- - - -i
'01' . 5,'
~ I J
I I 1 jr
c....
..... ,
+
SEE ~ 17 03 31 11
7
. .
~,:.
I.LI
LaJ
0:
I-
(J)
I ..,.
I~
1'0
. I ~
IG:
JOO
340
450
480.
490.
500
510t
5201
530t
540.
550t
5801
650t
7 SOt
760
79Qf
8SOC
870.
880C
900
9()()(
910(
930(
940C
950<
960(
..
.,
:.
..
:.
.a
03 3'0
Metropolitan Plan Amendment Application, State of Oregon Moto.r Pool Site
~
, t
Vicinity Map
APR.2
2006
Metropolitan Plan Amendment Applica~ion, State of Oregon Motor Pool Site
HAND DELIVERED
, June 8, 2006
JUN - 8 .2006
RECEIVED
Patricia Thomas, AlA
, Associate Planner
,City of Eugene
Planning' & Development
99 West 10th Ave'nue
Eugene, 'OR 97401
C\TY OF EUGEt~E
P lA"J N \ f'.l G .,0 E PART t.t't E NT
Re: Oregon 'Motor Pool Site .Metro p~~ Amendment and Zone Change
MA.06-2 and Z 06-9.
. -
Dear Patricia:
,Thank. you for your letter of May 12, 2906. .I w<?uld lik~ to share with
you my. perspective of the issues raised.
Metro Plan Amendment
1. Goal FindiDIlS
You have requested that, in addition to the' findings within the;
- Downtown Plan and the Council findings supporting its _ adoption,
additional fmdings bepro~ded clarifying 'consistency with Sta~ewide
Planp.ing .Go~s for 'amendin-g the designation of this specific site. -Your
request references Goals 9, 10 and 12. I do not see ~at suc~ analysis
for.the specific site is necessary for the reas~ns set ,forth. below.
It must be recognized that the new Eugene' Downtown Plan is a
somewhat.unusual refine~ent plan in _the sense that~ like the
superseded Downtown Plan, the new Downtown Plan did not include a
plan diagram. In -that respect, it is more similar to the '1992
Commercial Lands S4Idy. It directed the redesignation of certain sites
but there was no land Use diagram that redesignated tho'se sites, as
there usually. is in a refinement ,plan.
Unlike -the Commercial Lands. Study, andsirnilar to other refinement
, plans (e.g., neighborhood refinement plans), the Eugene Downtown
Plan did deal comprehensively with land use and'transportation issues
for a limited,geographical area following intense study of that area.
The Downtown Plan includes adopted policies, some very- specific,
intended to . guide land use in the plan area to reinforce- dowiltown.as a
strong re-gional cent~r and as a cultural center and center of
. ,
Phone:
, (541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene~ Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-11'47
Email:
inEo@orbuslaw.com
Web-Site:
wwvi. orbuslaw. com
Sean M. Bannon
Frederick A. .Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
A. J. Ciustina
Thomas ~ E. Herrmann*
Dan Webb Howard
Stephen O. Lane
William H. Martin*
Laura T. Z. 'Montgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Ian T. Richardson
Martha). Rodman
Douglas R; Schultz
Malcolm H. Scott
James w. Spickerman
, . Kate A. Thompson
Jane M. Yates
*Also admitted
in Washington
- Patricia Thomas,- AlA
June' 8, 2006
Page 2.
co~munity life. Goal findings were made on all applicable . Statewide-
Goals and 'the Downtown Plan, including the specific policies that
called for ,redesign'ation of particular'parcels c~nsistent with the
· ,Statewide Goals. The issue now- is only the mechanic~ of change in
the. diagram to. comply with what .the adopters of the refinement plan
found t6 be consistent with the 'Statewide Goals. If there was to be a
challenge to the,appropriatenes's' of,those designations called for in ,the
new DowntoWn Plan; it could'only be timely made when the refinement
plan was a,dopted.
My point in stressing the fact that the refinement plan adopted
addresses the entire plan 'area, so that analysis for individual sites is
not appropriate, is borne out by many' of the findings adopted with the
Downtown Plan. An example i,s GoallO-Housing. The findings 'state
. that: '
"The Downtown Plan specifically encourages a variety of
, housing and home ownership opportunities in the
downtown core and: qn the edg~s, of the Downtown 'Plan
area., T~e ,Pl~n supports the strategjc. use of financial
tools to assist housing ,development, in these loc'ations.,
The Plan does not reduce or increase the supply of
residel)tialland. Therefore, the refinement 'plan adoption
is consistent with Statewide GoalIO."
The Downtown Plan, taking a ,broader perspective, finds. that the Plan,
a~ a whole, does encourage a yariety- of hO'Qsing and.ho.me ownership
.... in the downtown area. Of co~rse., a part of that is th'e provision. for
utilization of tinderutilized sites for commerci~ .purposes in. order to
revitalize downtown ~d serve downtown hoti~~ng.
An a.rp.endment to a refinement plan that, is part of a local
, government's compr~hensive plan, as is the Downtown Plan relative to
the Metro Plan, isa cQmprehensive plan amendment. See Graville' ,
ProlJerties. Ltd. v. City of'Eugene, 2'( Or LU~A 583 (1994). In the
Graville Gase, the applicant sought an amendment to the Bethel-
Danebo Refinement Plan based upon identification of a ~ommercia1
node in the Co~mercial Lands Study. The applicant had sought to
, , increase the amount ,of commercial land in the node from 5 to 15 acres
and .to amend the text of the Refinement Plan to state that the
; commercial development of the 15 acres should be at. an intensity or
, level consistent with the Community Commercial zone.
Patricia Thomas, AlA
June 8, 2006
Page" 3
The Council granted redesignation but specified development should
be at a level consistent with Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) or
General Office (G-Q) zoning. The applicant pointed out that the
Commercial Lands Study had contained an Implementation Strategy
which called for the total of 15 acres and the desig.nation "to serve
both neighborhood commercial needs and as a community commercial
center."LUBA remanded the City's action after" determining that the
designation to Community Commercicil was the designation consistent
, with what "was then the. Metro Plan text by virtue of the amendment to
the Metro Plan effected by adoption of the Commercial Lands Study~
The situation is similar here. Redesignation of the site is clearly called
for in a poliCy of the Downtown Plan. Chapter Il of the Plan, entitled.
"Building a Downtown," "contains a section, "Facilitating Development,"
where it is stated:
"... All zoning regulations "for downtown should be
reviewed to look for ways to simplify and expedite
development downtown. In addition there are underused
and. vacant sites throughout downtown. Sorn"~ of these
parcels are not designated for commercial use in the Metro
Pian, or are designated commercial but not commercially
zoned. These sites, which include surface parking lqts
downtown, need to be redesignated or rezoned to allow for
the commercial developm~nt envision"ed in this plan." (p.
13) -
Consistent with this statement, the Plan adopts as a Policy, not just
an Inj.plementation Strategy, the following:'
'~3. Facilitateqowntown development by re-designating
and rezoning un~erutilized properties, such as surface
parking lots, to a commercial land use designation and a
commercial zone such as C-2" or C-3." (p. 14) "
The "State :Motor Pool site" is specified as area 3 on the map of A
Dozen Downtown Development Opportunity Areas at page 45 of the
Downtown Plan.
As a parking lot within the Downtown Plan area, the subject site is
appropriate. for commercial designation to facilitate commercial zoning
and development. While the Eugene Downtown Plan did not itself .
change plan designations, it g.ave clear direction" that those changes
Patricia Thomas, AlA
June 8,2006
Page. 4
should take place to encourage the development envisioned by the
Plan.
The direction of the Downtown Plan with regard to this parcel is not
conditional upon. any additional findings of need or land use inventory
considerations. That work was done when the Downtown Plan was
adopted. While it may be the ~ase that.an opponent could have called
upon the. City to specifically address the appropriateness of
redesignation of specific sites when the Downtown Plan was
considered, no such objection was made and no appeal was made of
the adoption of the Downtown Plan. Now the diagram must be made
consistent with the Plan text~
2. . Internal Consistency with M.etro Plan
Since the Metro Plan was effectively amended by the new Downtown.
Plan, there had to be findings that those ame~dments left the Metro
Plan internally consiste~t. In fact, such findings were made at the
time of adoption of the Downtown Plan. The cp.ange of the Metro Plan.
map, when that change is only to make it conform. with the text of the
adopted refinement plan, and now the Metro Plan, should not require
new findings of Metro Plan consistency. The present action only has
the effect of making the Metr~ Plan Diagram consistent with the Metro
Plan, as amend~d by the Downtown Plan.
Zone Change
Written Statement
· It is correct, as in.dicated above:- there is no diagram in the
Downtown Plan which can be amended by a Metro Plan
amendment.
· The Metro Plan designation of the. site noted in the middle of page 2
is in error. As indicated in the Metro Plan application, the present
designation is HDR/MU IND.
· Findings are not provided for Economic Element policy #6 relative
to the supply of, and demand for, commercial and industrial land
in this area for the reasons previously stated. The Metro Plan has
been amended by the Downtown Plan and found to be consi~tent
with that plan. The designation must, therefore, be consi~tent with
Patricia Thomas, AlA
'June 8, 2006 '
Page 5
the Metro Plan policies or the Downtown Plan could not have been
approved. . .
· You inquired as to the basis for adding" / N.D" to the zoning of the
site. At the same time the new Downtown Plan was adopted, the
City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Eugene-
Springfield . Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to add theND
symbol t9 the Eugene Downtown Plan area. It was anticipated that
'the City staff would insist that the applicant's zone request i~clude
application of the /ND zone, in order to be consistent'with the
Metro Plan designation of this as a Nodal Development 'area. The
,applicant i~ willing to withdraw that request.
As indicated in the text of the Downtown Plan, the Plan was, inteo'ded
to f~cilitate development and redevelopment of ' downtown and to
revitalize that are.a of.. the City. As you kn,ew better than I~ the Council
even called for a waiver of filing fees in order to encourage
rede~elopment. Certainly, the intent was the same when ~he adopted
plan ':called for redesignation an,d rezoning of particular parcels a~ part
of the plan. The Downtown Plan provides the necessary goals analysis
for the entire Plan area so that reus~ of'urtderutilized land can be"
facilitated without analysis for individual parcels. In the words of the
Plan/ "these sites, which include surface parking lots downtown, need
to be redesignated ... to allow for the commercial development
envisioned in this plan." (Downtown Plan, p. 12.)
I would hope this explanatio:Q is satisfactory but certai~ly would be
willing to meet with you. and other members of the staff to discuss the
issues furthe,r.
James W. Spick an
soickerman{illorbuslaw.
jca
cc': . Client
HAND DELIVERED
:' City Of Eugene'
~--~-pfamttft 9t'lisi9R
_ ~"~l~:~~~i~~~~n
July 24, 2006
..I-"-~
Patricia Thomas, AlA
Associate Planner
City of Eugene
Planning & Development
99 West ,10th Avenue
Eugene, O'R 97401
CITY OF EUGENE
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Qregon Motor Pool Site Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change
MA 06-2 and Z 06-9
Dear Patricia:
I wish to resP9nd to your 'iett~r of July 14, 2006.
I first 'will address your point, that the application relies on policy
statements in the Downtown Plan "which are 'described on .page 2 of
the plan as 'aspirational' and.' 'cannot be the basis for denial of public
or private proposals regarding change in the downtown. m Contrary to
your assertion, this statement does not imply that the policies are not
a direction to the Plan~ing Commission and City Council.
, On behalf of the State of Oregon, I was involved in the Downtown Plan
process throughout. This began with conversations with Kurt Yeiter
, about the' motor pool ~ite wherein he advised me ~at the Downtown
Plan .process was underway. I then communicated with Nan Lawrence
throughout the Planning Commission and City Council processes to
address the motor pool site.
When there was discussion at one of the Council work sessions
suggesting the addition of language describing the Plan policies as
aspirational, I became co~cerned. Enclosed is'a copy of my not~s of
my telephone conversation with Emily Jerome elated February 4,2004,
Phone:
, (541) 686.-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
97440-1147
Email:
info@orbuslaw.com
Web-Site:
www.orbuslaw.com
Sean M. Bannon
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
A. 1. Ciusti na .
Thomas P. E. Herrmann*
Dan Webb Howard
Steplhen O. Lane
William H. Martin*
Laura T. Z. Montgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
Standlee G. Potter
Ian T Richardson
Martha J. Rodman
Douglas R. Sch~ltz
Malcolm H. Scott
James W. Spickennari
Kate A. Th,ompson
Jane M. Yates
* Also adm i tted
in Washington
/.......*'.\
. Patricia Thomas, AlA 0 )
July 24,2006
Page 2. .
Exhibit 1. Also enclosed, is a copy of. an e.:.mail from Emily.to me
wherein she set forth the language to clarify what was intended by the
language that you cite in the Downtown Plan, Exhibit 2.
. The' concern of the Coun~i1ors was that the criteria for some land use
. ~pplications include the requirement that_deci~ions be cO'nsistent with
(mandatory) policies. If policies are deemed only "aspirational," they
would not be. interpreted as criteria for the decision, th€tefore, would.
not prevent or discourage development downtown. That IS explained
further in th~ Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary for April 12,
2004, page 2. A copy is enclosed as Exhibit.3.
The language in the Plan and this addition~ informatio.n I include
clear~y indicate that these policies 'have the force and effect of any
other policies in the Metro Plan or refinement plans in setting direction
for future land use actions.
While it is our position~ particularly as stated in .my June 8, 2006
letter to you, th~t the Downtown Plan, as~dopted, clearlydir~cts
redesignation and rezoning of the subje'ct property, therefore',
necessarily found the redesignation and rezo~iJ?g consistent with t~e
Statewide Goals at the .time the Downtown Plan ~as adop~ed, the
following.'comD;1ents are submitted to supplement those, in the original
application and our previous correspondence.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: ~To provide adequate
opportunities throughou~ the state for a variety of
economic activities vital to the health, weJare, cirid
, prosperity of Oregon"'s citizens.
The. D.owntown.Plan supports deI?-sity and inten.sity .of commercial uses
d<?wntown and speGifically add.resses the need to capitalize on
development opp~rtunities. The subject site is designated an
"opportunity area" in the Downtown Plan. The plan amendment is
. also consistent'with several'policies of t~e Eugene Commercial Lands
Study (ECLS), the local refinement plan implementing Statewide Goal
9.
. P~tricia Thomas, AlA
July'24~ ~006
Page 3
Policy 2.0
"Provide greater c~rtainty regarding the development of
commercial land by' resolving major conflicts between the
Metro Plan. designations and local zoning of land planned
or zoned for .commercial use." (P. 111-3.)
Presently, there exists a conflict betwe~n the Metro Plan and the
Downtown Plan, in that the Downtown Plan states, as a policy, this
parcel, along with other parking lots in the Dowritown Plan: area,
should be redesignated and rezoned to CommerCial use and the Metro
Plan Diagram, unless amended, is inconsistent with that policy.
Policy 8.0
"Recognize the differing needs of residential areas in. the
various, parts of the community, and determine the need
.tocreate additional commercial sites iri light of
opportunities for redevelopment~" (P. 111-8.).
As stated in the findings adopted at the time of adopti9n of the.
Downtown Plan:
"The Downtown Plan specifically encourages a variety of
housing. and homeownership opportunities in' the
downtown core and on the edges. of th~ DOWl)town Plan
area. . . . "
The plan amendment will, as is calle.d for in the policy, create an
additional commercial site where there is an opportunity for
redevelopme'nt with the result that the residential are~ of downtown
will have additional commercial alternatives.
Policy 11.0
"Promote neighborhood-oriented comme'rcial facilities and
community commercial areas rather than 'additional major
retail centers." (P. 111-9.)
rhe plan amendment will add to the role of downtown "as a commercial
center and strqng regional center as is sought by the Downtown Plan.
Patricia Thomas, AlA
July 24,2006
Page 4,
Policy 17.0
"Recognize that additional commercial development will
occur primarily through redeyelopment of existing
com~ercial sites." (P> 111-15.)
In the EeLS, the text of the Central/University Subarea which
contains the above policy states:
"There are approximately 18. aGres of surface, parking lots'
in the downtown are'a also, available for potential.
development. Additional development would be expected
t~ occur in the downtown and UniversitY areas through
redevelopment and increased densities..~." (P.III-15.)
Implementation strategy 17.1 states: .
"Continue existing City programs aimed at encouraging
redevelopment of existing comII:1ercial areas, especially
those in the downtown area." (P.III':'15.)
. ....Also, implement~~on strategy 17.3 states:
"Within the area. from the east sid~ of Agripac.to
Wa&hington Street, change the plan designation. and
zoning of land currently zoned for industrial use to
encourage a mixture of.'residenti~, commercial, and
compatible industrial use." (P.: 111-15.)
The subject'site is zoned, for industrial use and it i,8 envisioI?-ed by the
.Downtown Plan as being a part ,of the .mixture of residential and
commercial uses in the Downtown Plan area.
To .mak;e the Metro Plan Diagram .consistent with the Downtown Plan,
the designation .of the subject site to Commercial should be approved.
The redesignation is also consistent with the above policies of the.
EeLS, therefore, consistent with Statewide Goal 9.
Patricia Thomas, AlA
July 24,2006
Page 5
Goal 10 - Hous~ng: To provide for the housing n~eds' of Citizens
of the state.
OAR 690-008 is entitled, "INTERPRETATION OF GOAL 10 HOUSING."
OAR 660-008-0005 contains the applicaple definitions including that
for "Buildable Land." That definition states that: '
"Publicly owned land is generally' not considered available
for residential'use."
The subject property has been in the ownership of the, State of Oregon
si~ce 1980, long before ~doption of the EeLS, therefore, would not be
considered available for resiq~ntialland use within the m,eaning of
that study.
It is additionally noted that the Study at page 2 states:
"There is sufficient buildable residential land to meet the
, future housing needs, of the projected population. In fact,
the 1992 residential buildable l.ands supply exceeds the
1992-2015 residential land demand in all residential
categories. .. .>>
It may be helpful to know how the Plan came to call for the
redesignation and' rezoning of parkin,g lots. Enclosed as Exhibit 5 is a
letter (I ghost wrote) from the Admi~istrator for the Department','of.
Administrative Services, ,which was submitted to the Planning
Commission. As indicated in the second half of page 2 of that letter,
the draft .Plan had.. noted the underutilized land in the form of parking
lots in the train depot area and my client's letter calls for the same
treatment f9r the motor pool site. The outcome eventually was the
language in the Plan today calling for rede~ignation and rezoning of
the surface park~ng lots in the Plan area.
As discussed in the origina~ application, the subject parcel would. be ill
suited for residential purposes. It is withi~ the Fifth Avenue Special
Area and surrounded by Commercial zo.ning and commercial and office
uses with the exception of the EWEB site, which is presently
designated for industrial use. On the Pearl Street side of the property,
the property is only 130 feet deep while being bounded on its north'
siq.e by the railroad tracks. Such property would not be desirable for
Patricia Thomas, AlA
July 24, 2006
Page 6
residential use and, in particular, would not 'qualify' for high
residential use as affordable housing du~.to HUD rules.
It is furt;her noted that residential use is allowed .in the Commercial
zone. The City Council is presently considering an amendment to the
C-2 district to eli~inate the requirement of non-residential ground ..
floor. use. This would mean the site would remain available for
. residential use even if redesignate.~ and rezoned. Thesem~y not be
significant points in that the subject site, being publicly owned, would
not have been considered as buildable residential land in the first
place.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To p,rovide and encourage a safe,
convenient and economic transpcrtation system.
The findings of the City Council in adopting th~ Downtown Plan cited
the Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660~012-0060(2)(a)-(d) and
stated:
"The Downtown Plan and related 'code amendments' will
not significantly affect a transportation facility since they .
, do none of the things described in (a)-(d), above.
Four streets are proposed' to be characterized as 'Great
Streets': Broadway, Willamette,Fifth Avenue and Eighth
. Avenu~. rhe plan proposes that design standards and
guidelines be drafted for each street to e~phasize
pedestrian ameniti~s, and to attract pedestrian friendly
development, in art effort to create a ''walkable' downtown.
No change in the functional classification of these streets
i~ intended to result from this Plan. In addition, no
changes are proposed to the standards that implement the
functional classification system. The Plan does not, by its
adoption, allow types or levels of land uses which would
result in inconsistencies with the 'functional classification
of a transportation facilio/,. or reduce the performance
standards of the facility.
There,fore, the proposed refinement plan adoption is
Gonsist~nt with Statewide Planning Goal 12."
. Patricia Tho-mas, AlA
July 24,2006
Page 7
That should be the end of the discussion. The Downtown Plan" with
the policy language directing redesignation of the parking lot was
found, in the adoption of the plari, to be consistent with Goal 12.
The call for a traffic impact analysis is not merited given the location
. and context of this plan amendment -directed by the new Downtown
Plan. The subject site is 1; 718 acres and presently plan designated
HDjMU. Adopted at the " same time as the Downtown Plan was a
Metro Plan amendment redesignating the 9.05-acre courthouse site
from Heavy Industrial to Commercial. While there was a comparison
of anticipated traffic volumes projected for the new designation as
. compared to the industrial designation, there was no Traffic Impact
Analysis even though 10,775 new trips were anticipated. Thefindings
were made that the existing transportation facilities were adequate to
serve . this' amount of new development.
. The Council findings noted that the proposed transportation
improvements planned in conjunction with the development of the
area would improve the transportation facilities in the immediate area,
particularly for pedestrians. The proposed plan amendments were
found to be consistent with Goal 12. Noted in the findings and
relevant here is the fac,t that the Oregon Administrative Rules set out
. certain automatic credits for reduction in vehicle trips for
developments in ~mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly centers' and
neighborhoods." This is an ND Nodal Development area, as the central
business district, and a transit-oriented pedestrian district. This
designation would enable the City to qualify for State credit in
reduction of vehicle miles traveled, in further compliance with the
State Transportation Planning Rule. -
Given the finding that.a redesignation of 9.05 acre~ of land to
'commercial use in the immediate vicinity of the. subject site did not
require a traffic impact analysis and was found to not "significantly
affect" a transportatiop facility, it follo\ys that the case is the saine for.
the proposed redesignation here. Moreover, redesignation is directed
by the Downtown Plan following a finding that the Downtown Plan, "
including the policy direction to design4lte this parcel, was consistent
with Goal 9.
. If it is a relevant inquiry, I have reviewed the Oregon Administrative
Rules and am aware of what amendments !1ave been made to the rules
Patricia Thomas, AlA
July 24,2006
Page 8.
. .
subsequent to the adoption of the, DOWI1-town Plan. None of the
amendments to the .rules would alter the. positive findings made on the
. Statewide Goals at th.e time the Downtown Plan was adopted. .
'. . .
. The City Counci~ discussions, including" the final one, com~ to mind..
," There. was. a reoccurri~g focus on facilitating redevelopment in the'
Downtown Plan area .(of course, this is expr~ssed.in the Plan itself) and
a concern that the Downtown Plan would "sit on a shelf' and not be
implemented. Certainly,' these will have proved prophetic andvalid
concerns if a clearly stated policy of the Downtown 'Plan is not
. implemented.
I would ask that you deem the application 'complete. Enclosed9.re
twelve sets of the application mater~als.
James W. Spieker' .n.
soickerma.nCCUorbuslaw. com
jca
. cc: Client (w/enc)
Exhibits:
1. Notes 2/4/04
2. E-~ai1, E. Jerome, 2/4/04
3. City Council Agenda. Item Summary, 4/12/04
. 4. State of Oregon letter 7 / 16 / 0'3
. Enclosures: Application,. 12 sets
Exhibit 1
i .:;). u. Qt{-.
~\8 - ~\cJ~~t,
Exhibit.2
James W. Spi.cke'rman
From:
.Sent:
To:
Subject:
Emily JEROME [e.mily.n.jerome@harrang.com]
Wednesday. February 04, 2004 2:53 PM
Spickerman@orbuslaw .com
Downtown Plan
Hi Jim. per your concerns, the memo that staff submitted for the City
Council's packet includes a sent~nce to clarify the effect of Policy
11.3.
An excerpt from the memo follows:
"During Council discussion, questions were raised concerning the
applicability .of the policies in the plan to land use decisions. Based
on
. direction from the Downtown Plan Update Committee (Plan.ning Commission
, plus
Councilors Bettman, Meisner and Nathanson), the policies in the
Downtown
Plan are generally aspirational in nature. They ,are intended to
reinforce
the desired character and activities for downtown, and to garner broad
support and action from all factions in the community. They were not.
intended to be the basis for ~'denial of a downtown development.. For'
example, Policy 11.3. indi~tes the City's suppo~ for future proposals
to . . ' .'
re-designate and/or rezone underutilized properti~s in downtown. The
exception is Policy V1.3. (the EWES policy requiring a master plan
before
the City can approve an application for redevelopment not associated
with .
EWES functions)."
. ,
Exhibit 3
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
c
Action: Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Diagram to Add the ND Syq1bol to the Eugene Downtown Plan Area; Redesignating the
Federal Courthouse Site From Heavy Industrial to Commercial; Adopting a Severability
Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and
An Ordinance Adopting a New Eugene Downtown Plan as a Refinement of the Eugene-
. Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 3882 and the
Eugene Downtown Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.9540 of the Eugene
Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: April 12., 2004
Department: Planning and Development
www.ci.eugene..or.us
Agenda It~in Number: B
Staff Contact Nan Laurence
Contact Telephone Number: 682-5340
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
. The updated Downtown Plan will provide long-range direction for .future development, improve~ents,
" and activities in the downtown area. When adopted, this plan will ~eplace the 1984 Eugene Downtown
Plan as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
The final text draft of the Downtown Plan is included as Attachment A. Adoption of the Downtown
Plan as a new refinement plan and approval of the Land Use Code Amendment and Metro Plan
Amendments li.sted above must be by ordinance; pleas~ refer to Attachments Band C.
BACKGROUND
. .This discussion isa follow-up to the January 26, 2004, public hearing. Additional information on the
review and approval process for the Downtown Plan and related Land Use Code and Metro Plan
amendments can be found in the Agenda Item Summary for that hearing.
Council Action History
City Council held a work session on the Downtown" Plan and related Metro Plan and Code amendments
. on December 1, 2003. The council held a publjc hearing on these items on JanuarY 26, 2004, and closed
the record following the close of the hearing. Changes requested by the council at the work session and
the public hearing have been incorporated into a text only version of the Downtown Plan, as shown on
Attachment A: Downtown Plan, Final Text Draft, dated February 9, 2004. StafIis in the process of
developing a Downtown Work Plan based on the implementation strategies and project examples in the
plan. This work plan will be presented to the council at a future work session.
L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S040412B.doc
ex.3 ,-,:/'/
Policy iss.ues .
Please refer to the Agenda Item Sunun8ry for the January 26, 2004, p~blic hearing.
Council 'Goal Action 'Priority
Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, 2004, public hearing.
Financial and/or Resource Consideration~,
Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, .2004, public hearing.
Other Background Information
~taff addres~ed the changes suggested by City Council follo\ying the January 26, 2004, public hearing.
These changes are prese~ted in legislative version in Attachment A.
Staffnotes in particular the following changes:
I'. EWEB Policy ,
Staff inc~uded final changes to the EWEB policy to specify a pro~ess by which the required master
plan can be approved. EWEB is. comfortabl~ with the new text of this policy (page 29).
2. Histori~ Properties .
Staffincluded c~anges t~ Chapter IV, Special Places to r~place Implementation Strategy#D
. regarding historic structures as a. new policy, and add the word "appropriate." This change does not
increase any protection for ~y lis~ed property. Policy #4 now reads as follows: "Encourage listing
of appropriate structures and sites of historic importance in the National Register of Historic Places
. . or as City of Eugene Historic Landmarks" (page 23).
3. Status of Policies Proposed for Adoption
During CitY Council discussion, questions were raised concerning'the applicability of the policies 'in
the pI,an to land use decisions. Based, on direction from'the Downtown Plan l!pdate Committee
. (Planning Commission plus Councilors Bettman,.Meisner ~d Nathanson), the policies in the
Downtown Plan are generally aspirational in nature. They are intended to reinforce the desired
character and activities' for downtown, and to gamer broad support and action from all factionS in the
community~ They were not intended.to be the basis for a denial of a downtown development. For
example, Policy 11.3. indicates the City's support for future proposals to re-de'signate and/or rezone
underutilized properties in downtown. The exception is Policy VI..3 (the EWEB po~icy requiring a
master plan before the City can approv'e an application for redevelopment not as~ociated with EWEB
fUnctions). .
To clarify the intent of the policies, staffhas added a statement to the introductory text of the plan,
so that section states: "Policies are. statements to articulate and move the community towards its
goals. With the exception of Policy VI -3, relating to EWEB's'riverfront property, the policies in the
Downtown Pl~ are aspirational, and cannot be . the basis for 4enial of public or private proposals
regarding change in the downtown" (page 6). Alternatively, this intent could have been clarified by
adding text to each aspirational policy to make its aspirational nature clear to the user (e.g. use the
word "should" in those policies).
As the material is currently presented for the council's adoption, any applicant proposing a code
amendment, zone change or a general (non-needed-housing). CUP or PUD will have to address each
L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S040412B.doc
~:?;:>~2
of the plan's policies. For .those that are aspirational and that apply to a proposed development, the
applicant will need only to show that the policy was considered. By ope~ation of state law, .the City
can. only require that an appli~ant requesting approv~l.of a partition, subdivision or site review (a
limited land use decision) address those plan policies if the City adds the policies to the code. Staff
recommends that the 'council does not add the nonmandatory/aspirational policIes to the.code.
If the council chooses to require that the. aspirational policies .be addressed as part of limited. land, use
decisions, regal staff recommends that each aspira~onal policy be revised to .make its aspiratiorial
nature clear before it is added"to the code. This is necessary because the"code will not include the
explanatory language from the plan's 'introduction, described above. The suggested revisions to do
so are attache~ hereto (Attachment D).
Timing
Final action on the updated Downtown Plan and related Metro Plan and Code" amendments is scheduled
to occur at this meeting, April 12, 2004. . Staff is in the process of developing a Downtown Work Plan as
noted at the public hearing on January 76. This work plan will be presented to the council at a future
work session.
OPTION.S
The council may:
1. Approve the Downtown Plan and adopt Ordin~ces No.. 1. and N~. 2;
2. Request changes to the D~wntown Plan and adopt. only Ordinance No.1; or
3. Request changes to the Downtown Plan and to both ordinances
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council approve the DowntoWn Plan and adopt both ordinances.
SUGGESTED MOTION .
Move to approve the Downtown Plan as revised and direct staff,to prepare a graphic copy for
publication. .
Move to adopt an or<l:inance amending the Eug,e,1e-Springfield Metropolitan Area general Plan Diagram
. to add the NO Symbol to the Eugene Downtown Plan Area; redesignating the Federal Courthouse site
from Heavy Industrial to Commercial; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date.
Move to adopt an ordin~nce adopting a New Eugene Downtown Plan'as a Refinement of the Eugene-
. Springfield Metropolitan.Area General Plan; repealing Resolution No. 3882 and the Eugene Downtown
Plan adopted therein; amending Sec~ion 9.9540 of the. Eugene Code, 1971; adopting a severability
clause; and providing an effective date. .
L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M0404'12\S040412B.doc
~;$ ~..s
ATTACHMENTS
A. Eugene, Downtown Plan, Final Text Draft,' dated February 9, 2004
B. Ordinance No. 1 and .Related Exhibits
C. Ordinance No. 2.and Related Exhibits
l? Alternative Draft P~licy Language'
Note: The draft Downtown Plan version including illustrations an4 maps was distributed/or th.e City
Council work session on December 1, 2003.' Additional copies are available. See staff contact below.
FOR MORE. INFORMATION
Staff Contact: . Nan Laurence
Telephone: 682-5340
.Staff E-Mail: nan..laurence@cLeugene.or
L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S040412B,doc
· .FJ<,..3 rcr" "f-
, .r:..~-~~.,,~
i }}-
regon
. Exhibit 4 .
..::......./ -:~:~).'.\ .'
: r
Deparbnent of Administrative Services
Facilities Division
1225 Ferty Street SE U100
Salem,. OR 97301-4281
(503) 378-2865
FAX (503) 373-7210
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
JlJly 16, 2003
Eugene Plannin.g' Commission
City of Eugene
777 Pe-art Street, Room 105
Eugene, OR 97401
. R.e: Downtown Plan (RA 03-3)
~tate of Oregon Motor Pool Site
445 Pearl Street
Tax Lot 17-03-30-44-08900
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, is the owner of the above
referenced site. The State seeks a modification of the dr~ft Eugene Downtown Plan to
designate as appropriate for commercial development the State of Oregon motor pool
site. We believe such a 4esign~tion would be consistent witl1.the policies of the draft
Downtown, Plan, the Metro Plan arid existing land uses and zoning designations.
A. Descripti~n of the site.
The former motor pool building and parking lot occupy this 1.718-'acre site. Fuel ~anks
have been removed from the site QQt the site continues to be used as a parking. lot for
state .vehicles~
The site is bounded on the south by the railroad tracks and on the north by 4th Avenue
and lies between Pearl and High Streets.
. The site is presently zoned 1-2 Light Medium Industrial. Property records indicate the
site was purchased by the State of Oregon in 1980 from Ideal Basic Industries~ Inc.,
who acquired ~itle as Ideal Cement Co. Presumably, the nature of that previous use was
the source of the industrial designation that'now exists.
B. .' La~d. use designations and uses in the area.
The Metro Plan Diagram designates the subject site, the EWEB property to t~e east,
across High Street, and property. to the north High Density ResidentiallMixed Use
(HDRIMU).
.""'~I.
....... .
The draft Eugene Downtown Plan diagram proposed wotild retain the I$~p~i~'- .~ fi '\W.':~~';~:<':;l
. Residentia1/Mixed Use designation, adding the nodal designation. . . ! ; :' ,~,i r~'::'" 1<:1 .., U L~ Ii! : !
':' ; I ~ iil
~ ; I .' JUl 2 3 DB ~ ~..i":
I ; f7 ~' i
J
. Clt~,l 0i f.l1p~ne
, . . t'~'I'I.:1
~
"_ ~ ..0..4
/-~~""
Eugene Planning COI:1{)_...~ion
July 17, 2003
Page 2
The motor pool site and the EWER property immediately 'east of the site are zoned
Light Medium Industrial (1-2) district. With the exception of the EWER property to the
east, the motor pool site is surrounded by properties in the S-FFifth Avenue Special
. Area Zone, a special zone which, generally, allows uses of the General Commercial (C-
2) zoning district. The zoning for the larger areas is shown on the enclosed color map,
an enlargement of a portion of the City zoning map.
With the exception of the area to the south, w~ch is occupied by the railroad tracks, the
Granary Building and the Fifth Street Market, the subject site is surrounded by office
uses. The EWEB building to the east contains the Energy Outlet and engineers' offices,
land on the north side of 4th Street is developed in accountants' offi~es, and to the west,
acros~ Pearl Street, ~s the Oregon Social Learning Center. .
C. The motor pool site is not appropriate for high-density residential use.
. The location and configuration of the motor pool site would make extremely unlikely
the site' ~ utilization for high-density housing. Noise and vibration from the rail use
would conflict with residential use. Assuming the most likely use for such high density
residence would be affqrdable housing, it would not qualify.for such under HUD rules
$ince .the noise levels would be deem unacceptable for residences. The site would be
difficult to develop in high density housing also because it has only 130 feet of depth on
the Pearl Street side while sharing its largest boundary with the railroad right-of-way.
Assuming the R-4 zoning designation was applied to the property to carry out the plan
designation, a minimum of 30+ units. would be reqUired to be developed on the site as
well as on-site parking. Given the location of the site, such development is highly
mM~e~. .
Unless a special zoning district was developed to carry out the mixed use portion of the
Plan designation fo~, the site, the otily commercial development allowable in.an R-4
district would be Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) development. This commercial
. development would be subject to PUD procedures and would be required to be shown
to serVe the residents of the residential portion of the development. Such commercial
development would not be financially feasible.
The area in which the motor pool site is locat~ being in the midst of the existing Fifth
Avenue district is appropriate for commercial designation for many of the same pollcy
reasons as is the Courthouse property. It is also similar to the train depot area, which is
presently zoned for industrial uses. The draft Plan states with regard to the train depot
area:
"... This area will be redesignated and rezoned to. allow commercial
development compatible with the adjacent downtown area.".
. The motor pool site should be given the same treatment as the train depot area.
",r"--- '"
Eugene Planning Com,; t. Jion
July 17,2003
Page 3
D. ' Conclusion.
The State of Oregon seeks amendment to the text of the draft Downtown Plan to direct
the redesignation of the motor pool site to a commercial plan designation and
amendment of the Metro Plan Diagram to implement that textual change in the Plan.
Very truly yours,
~~~~vv~
Laurie A. Wamer
Administrator
Enclosure (color maps)
cc: James'Spickeiman
o
~
~
~
..,
..
1111
1-2 Light-Medium Industrial
'1-3 Heavy Industrial
. S-F Fifth Avenue Special Area Zone
~
T
1
HAND DELIVERED
August 21,. 2006
. .
. RECE1Vtv
AUG 2 1 2006
CITY OF EUGEf\IE
. PLA~Jf\IJNG DEPtb,RT~..f1E~.JT
Patricia Th.omas, AlA -.patricia.thomasUUci.eu~ene.or.us
Associate Planner
City:..of Eugene.
planning & Development
99 West 10th Avenue
'E'ugene, OR 974:01
Re: Oregon Motor Pool Site Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change
MA 06-2 and Z 06-9
Dear Ms. Thomas:
.Ericlose'dherewith are revised findings for. Statewide Goal 12 -
Transportation.
jca
Enclosure
cc: Client (w / ene, . bye-mail)
. Emily.Jerome (wi ene, bye-mail) .
Phone:
(541) 686-8833
Fax:
(541) 345-2034
975 Oak Street
Suite 800
Eugene I Oregon
97401-3156
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1147
Eugene, Oregon
974'40- t 147
.Email:
i nfo@orblflSlaw.com
Web-Site: .
www.orbuslaw.com
Sean M. Bannon
Frederick A. Batson
Jon V. Buerstatte
Joshua A. Clark
A. J. Giustina
Thomas ~ E. Hemnann*
Dan Webb Howard
Stephen O. Lane
William H. Martin*
Laura T Z. Montgomery*
Tanya C. O'Neil
. Standlee G. Potter
Ian T Richardson
Martha J. Rodman
Douglas R. Schultz
.Malcolm H; Scott
James ~. Spickerman
Kate A. Thompson
Jane M. Yates
* Also admitted
in Washington
',-l
................~-, .-.................. .........-....
[:) -.-........ ._.~"'--_...._._---.--l
, lEC~[f\/[D
r
'REVlSED FINDINGS .
'. ~tatewi4e Goal 12 - Transportation
------
. .-----.-l
J
A~G 2 1 2006 -/
C..__..._-~_.~.,_..._-,- ,~
tTY OF EUGFJ\~i:
P LA ~~ rJ I 1\i G 1)1:: p ~~. 9:'- ';, ~.- .~~ ~
. '4-., r 'I I',!: l'.~_...J
Goal.12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a sale, co~venient
and economic .transportation system..
Goa112 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR;
OAR 660-12). The TPR requires that amendments ~o an acknowledged
'comp~ehensive plan must assure that allowed land uses are consistent with
the identified f~nction, capacity and performance standards. (e.g., level of
service or the volume to capacity ratio,. etc.) of transportation facilities. .
The amendment. to the Metro Plan Diagram and change in zone-proposed
here will not significantly , affect transportation facilities for several reasons:
The Downtown Plan. as adopted contemplated . the redesignation ~d
rezoning of the cited issue here. Chapter II of the Downtown Plan, entitled
"Building a bowntown," contains the section "Facilitating Development,"
. wherein it is stated. .
"... All zoning regulations for downto~n should be reviewed to look
for ways .to simplify 'and expedit~ development downtown. ~n
addition" there are underused and vacant sites throughout
downtown. Some of these parcels are not designated for
commercial use in, the Me:tro Plan, or .are designated commercial
but not commercially zoned. These sites, which include surface
parking lots downtown,'need to be redesignated or rezoned t~ .allow
for the commercial development envisioned in this plan." (p. 13)'
Consistent with this statement, the Plan .adopts as a Policy, not just an
Implementation Strategy, the following:
"3. Facilitate downtown development by re-designating and
rezoning underutilized properties, such as surfac'e parking lots, to .
a commercial land use designation and a commercial zone such as
C-2 orC-3." (p. '14J
The "State Motor Pool .site" is specified a~ area 3 on the map of A Dozen
Downtown Development Opportunity Are.as at page 45 of the Downtown Plan.
As a parking lot within the D~wntown Plan area, the subject site is
app~opriate for commercial designation'to facilitate commercial zoning and
Revised Findings Statewide Goal 12 - Transportation
Page 1
development. While the Eugene Downtown Plan did not itself change plan
designations, it gave clear direction that those changes should take place to
encourage. the development envisioned by the Plan. .
In adop~g the Downtown Plan with the above quoted policy, the Eugene
City Council cited the TPR,specifica1ly OAR 660-0 12-0060(2)(a)-(d) which
requires measures to be taken if an amendment to a comprehensive Plan
significantly affects.a transportation facility and stated: .
"The Downtown Plan and relate.d code amendments will not
significantly affect a transportation facility since they do none of
the things described in (a)-(d), above.'
. Four street~ are proposed to be characterized as 'Great Streets'.:
Broadway, Willamette, Fifth Avenue and Eighth Avenue. The plan
proposes that design standards and guidelines be drafted for each
street to emphasize. pedestrian amenities, and to attract pedestrian
friendly development, in an effort to create a 'wa1ka~le' downtown.
No' change in the func.tional classific.ation of these streets is
intended to.result from this Plan. In addition, no changes are
proposed to ti)e standards that implement the functional
classification. system. The Plan does not, by its adoption, allow
types or levels of land uses which would result in inconsistencies
with the functional classification of a transportation facility, or
reduce the performance standards of the facility.
Therefore, the proposed refinement plan adoption is.consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 12."
This site and area are subject to both the /TO Transit Oriented
Develop'ment Overlay Zone and the jND Nodal Development Overlay Zone. The
purpose of the jTDzone. states:
"The jTD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone is iritended
to promote the creation and retention of mixed land uses in areas
with high potential for enhanced transit and pedestrian activity.
Pedestrian cir~ulation and transit access are especially important
and have.increased emphasis in areas with the jTD overlay zon~.
The development standards 'are designed to encourage compact
urban growth, opportunities for increased choice of transport~tion
mode, reduced reliance on the autom.obile, and ~ safe and pleasant
pedestrian environment, by insuring an attractive streetscape, a
functional mix of complementary uses, and provision of amenities
Revised Findings Statewide Goal 12 .;. Transportation
Page. 2
that support the use of transit, bicycles, and.pedestrian facilities."
- .
EC 9.4500.
As is apparent, this overlay zone is intended to minimize the use of .
individual vehicles by promotion of the use of transit and encouragement of
. pedestrian activity. The motor pool site is presently vacant The requirements
of the /TD overlay zone are applicable to "(n)ew structures on redevelopment
sites, such as conversion of a parking area to a bui1ding.~.." See EC 9.4510(2).
Any development of the site will have to address the requirements of the /TD
overlay zone which encourages pedestrian activity and places restrictions on
the location and type of parking facilities allowed. .
, Pursuant to EC 9.4270, since development of this parcel would involve
conversion of.a parking area to a structure,. all the provisions. of the IND
overlay zone will be applicable to redevelopment. This means that motor
vehicle related uses and drive-through facilities will be prohibited and there will
be a limitation on the amount of ground floor area that may be occupied by
retail uses' in any new building. Both of these overlay zones will tend to
minimize the area's suitability for individual ~otor vehicl~. use.
it
This area. is logically a nodal area and it is near transportation systems.
The Central Area Transportation Study (CATS), ado'pted.May 24,2004,
. .
specifically addresses this area. - The 2004 update of CATS states that it is
focused on changes to the transportation ~ystem that result from the update to
the Eugene Downtown Plan (see page 6). At page 61 of CATS, the transit
system discussion map indicates the portion map 'ofHigh Street adjacent to the
subject siteis to be a Downtown Shuttle Service route and potential future BRT
route.
EC 9.9515 consolidates, in the Eugene Code, the policies of CATS. . Policy
"(l)(a) states:
"Promote the development of a trailsportati<;>n system within the
" downtown area that supports the goals of the Downtown Plan...."
EC 9.9515(2)(a) states:
"Improve the pedestrian system in the downtown area to encourage
walking as a primary means of transport~tion within downtown.."
EC 9.9515(2)(b) encourages the creation of "great streets" in the
downtown area that will stimulate pedestrian activity while allo:wing bicycle
and slow-moving automobile traffic.
Revised Findings Statewide Goal 12 - Transportation
Page 3 "
I
j
I
. EC 9.9515(4) contains a policy that supports "frequent transit-based
shuttle service in the greater downtown areas." .
All of.these policies of CATS set forth the clear direction that.the
dowiltown area is to .be pede'strian and transit oriented, consiste,nt with the
finding that the proposed plan amendment will not significantly affect any
transportation facilities. '
When the Eugene City Council adopted the Downtown Plan, the Council
noted in its findings that the proposed transportation improvement pla.i1 in
conjunction with the development of the area would improve the trarisportation
facilities in the immediate area, particularly for pedestrians. Noted in the
findings' at that. time and relevant her~ is the provisions in the Transportation
,Planning Rule for automatic cr~dits ,for reduction'in vehicle trips for
developments in "mixed, use, pedestrian-friendly centers or neighborhoods." As
, discussed above, as an existing central business district'and' a frD transit
oriented' district area, this area meets the definitio~'ofa "mixed use,
. pedestri~-friendly center or neighborhood" as that term is defined in the TPR.
This designation would enable ,the City to qualify for State credit in reduction of
vehicle mIles traveled, in f~rther compliance with the' TPR.
All of the above factors' and ,the findings of the Council. that the
Downtown Plan, with a ,policy in place that directed redesignation and rezoning
of the motor pool site, 'confirm that thi~ amendment to the Metro Plan will not
significantly affect transportation facilities; therefore, is consistent with Goal
12.
Revised Findings Statewide Goa112 -'Transportation
Page 4 '
ATTACHMENT, M
'Q
Plannin,g & Development
Plann~ng ,
APR' 2' 1 2006 City of Eugene'
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
. (5~ 1) 682..5377
. (541) 682~5572 F P\)(
WNW ;eugen~-or.gov
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION
, Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additjonal information may be required upon,
further review in order, to adequately address the applic~ble criteria for ~pp~ova1. If you have any questions
about filling out this application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone
(541) 682~5377) 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene. " , .
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in' the requ'~st. Please indicate
if only a portion .of'a lot 'is in~luded in 'the, request and include any additional map and .tax lot numbers
for subject proverty. Also, include existing and proposed ov~rlay zomng. '
Assess()r's ,Map, , T~~'Lot: : '.' .:_.... ';.Eii$ti~2.Zo~nif." . . Pioposed Zoning
17-03-30-44 8900 1-.2 /TD, C';;2/TD/ND
1
:
i
street .Address (if available):.
445 Pearl street, Eugene', OR 97401
Existing Use(s) oftbe Property:,
Parking Lot
, P~oposed Use(s) of the Property:
Commercial
, Acres:
1.718
Is this zQne cha!!le being reviewed concurrently with another land, use application?
~ Yes, application rue number: DNo'
Filing Fee
~ A filing fee must accompany all applications.. The fee varies depending upon the type of application
. and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and
Information Center to determine the required fee or ch~k website www.eugeneplanning.o~g
'Written. Statement
Provide 3 copies upon initial submittal. Following completeness review, submit? copies.
~
A written statement demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the criteria in the Eugene
Code, Section 9.8a65. A list of the criteria is available at the Eugene Pennit and Infonnation Center,
99 West '10th Avenue. Please 'note: it is'the applicant's r:esponsibility to provide adequate
information demons~rating h<?w the proposa~ satisfies the applicable criteria. FailUre to provide such
information m~y result in a denial of your application.
Last Revised: December 31, 2003
Page 1 of 1
Zone Chai:1ge f\pplic~tion Fonn
Map Information
Provide 3 copies upon initi.a.l ~ubn1itt~l. Fo.llowirig completeness review, submit 7 copies.
..~
~.
A map. indicating the propeity involved iri the request and sh~wi~g adjacent.streets, 'alleys, etc.
See attached'. .
A'vicinity map showing the gene~al area of the request and indicating the specific property involyed
in the request. "
.See attached.
Lel!al DescriDtion
!ZI A legal description for each existing lot involved in the requested change. 'This description mu:st be
typed and suitable for recording. '. '
See attached.
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands the submittal r~quirements
outlined herein, and that. be/she understands that omission of any listed item,may caus~ delay.in
pro.cessing this appli~ation. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information suppli~d in this
application is complete' and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
PROPERTY OWNER.
State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services
. Name (print): William Foster, Administrator' Phone: '503-318-2f~xt 25~~
Addr~ss: 155 Cottage Street .NE
S.alein, OR 97301
. <;;ity/StatelZip: ,
.~~
Signature;
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
Name (print):
James w. Spicke~an
Company/Organization:
Gle~ves Swearingen Potter & Scott, LLP
Address:
P.O. ,Box 1147
City/State/Zip:
Eugene, OR 97440-1147
Phone:
686-8833
Fax:
345-2034
Signature:
NOTE: This is not a cOInplete list of requirements. ional information may pe required after further
review, in ofger to adequately address the required criteria of approval.
Zone Change Application Form
Last Revised: December 31t 2003
Page 2 of 2
. .~
#:.
,,,
WRITTENSTATE~ENT IN SUPPORT OF' : .
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION':. . , . , '
APR 2 1 2006
. STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE.'
. , " i, .
REGARDING: 445 Pearl Street, map 17 -03-30-44, _t~ 'lot 8900
.. .-....
. ,
This application for zone. change is submitted in conjunction with. an
applica:tion for amenqment:to'the Metro Plan Diagram. EC 9.7750(4) 'provide~
that, if an amendment only to the Metro Plan Diagram'is approved, the effect is
to ~utomatic~ly amend the refinement plan diagram (the Downtown Plan
Diagram), if no 8.J)1endment to the refinem'ent plan'text is involved. There is no
amendment to the refinement plan, text involved in this application. The
proposed' zone change. will result in zoning of the, property consistent with the .
amended Metro 'and Downtown Plan D~agram~.
The,Zone Change Approval Criteria set forth inEC 9.8865 are addressed
as follows:
Zone Chan2e Aooroval Criteria
(1) TJ.:1e proposed change is consist~itt with applicable provisions
of the Metro Plan~' 'The written text of the Metro Plan shall take
precedence over the Metro Plan 'diagram where apparent conflicts or
inconsistencies exist. .
The Eugen.e Downtown'Plan is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. The
Eugene Downtown Plan adopted April 12, 2004 contains the following
discussion in Chapter"II of the Plan e.ntitled, ";Building a Downtown." In the
section of th~t chapter entitled "Facilitating Development," it is s.tated:
"... All zoning regulations for downtown should be reviewed to look
for ways to simplify and expedite development downtown. In
addition there are underused and vacant .sites througho.ut
.downtown. Some of these parcels are not designated for. '
cqmmercial use in the Metro Plan, or are designated commercial, \
but 1)ot commercially zoned. These sites, which include surface
. parking lots downtown, need to be. redesignated .'or re~oned to allow'
for the commercial development. envisioned in this plan." (p. '13)
Consistent with this statement, tfte Plan adopts as a Policy the following:
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION)
STATE OF'OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 1
......
r1
fl
.,. .
. "3. Facilitate-downtown development by re~designating and
rezoning u~derutilizedproperties, such as' surface parking lots,. to
a ~oinmerci~ land use designation and a commercial zone such as
C-2.'or C-3'." (p.14)
The subject site is a parking lot wjthin the. Downtown Plail area,
presently zoned 1-2. Pursuant to the above policy, the application for
Comprehensive Plan amen~menthas been submitted seeking Commercial Plan
designatiqn of the site. This applicatiOl1 .fOf a zone change ,from Light'Medium
IndustrialjTransit Oriented D~velopment (I-2jTD) to .Community Commercial .
Zone/Transit Oriented Development/Nodal Deve~opment Ove.rlay (C~2lTDjND)
will carry out the 'portion of the flbove policy pertaining to ch&nge of zone.
The Metro Plan is a framework plan that is supplemented by mor~
detailed, refinement plans. As stated in JacQua. v. Citv ,of Sorin2field, 193 Or
App 573,580, 91 P3d 817 (2004):
"LUBA . concluded' .and we agree, that the Me~o . Plan operates as a
general plan in that it contemplates it will be . supplemented , as the '
plan states, 'by more detailed r~finement plans, progranis and
',policies. "'
, Similar t9. the situa~ion in Knutson Familv LLC v. City of Eugen~,. 200 Or
App 2~2 (2005), there is not a conflict,between the prese~t Metro Plan diagram
designation of. the site for Industrialf Mixed. Use and th.e, refinement plan
language that directs the designation. of the property -to a Commerci~ 'plan
designation. The ~ewly.adopted Downtown. Plan ~erely refines the general
designations of the Metro Plan'. The plan amendment js appropriate and the
change of zone proposed here should 'be gran~ed to 'carry out the' plan
designation and. the specific policy.of the Eugene Downtown Plan.
The zone change is. consistent with the applicabl~ policies of the Metro
Plan set forth in the Economi~ Element of 'the Plan:
"6.. Increase the amount of undeveloped land zon~d for light
industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective s~pply in
.terms of s~itabili,ty and' availability with projections of demand.
*****
11. Encourage economic activities which strengthen the
metropolitan area's position as a regional distribution, trade,
health, and service center.
*****
WRIttEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 2
. ,~
-.
14. Continue efforts to keep the Eugene's and Springfield's central
business districts as vital centers of the metropolitan area."
It is noted~that Policy 5 of the Economic Element states:
. ,
"Provide existing industrial activity sufficient to adjacent
land for future expansion.>>
There are no existing industrial activities in this immediate area. This
presently industrially zoned property is virtually surrounded by commercial
use and any industrial activity that.could take place on the property would not
have any possibility of future expansion.
(2) The . proposed zone change is consistent wit~ applicable
adopted refinement plans. In the. event of inconsistencies between
these plans and the Metro Plan,. the M~tro Plan controls.
The zone change is precisely consistent with the above quoted language
from the Eugene Downtown Plan directing that parking lots in the Plan area be
designated and rezoned to commercial use.' As explained apove, there is not an
inconsistency between the refinement plan and the Metro Plan. The refinement
plan is only a generalized depiction of land uses and the refinement plan text
clearly indicates the appropriate zone for the subject property. Finally,.the
Eugene Downtown Plan has been acknowledged to be consistent with the
Metro Plan.
Refinement plans to the Metro Plan include functional plans. The 1992
Commercial Lands Study is such a functional plan. . Policy 2.0 states:
"Provide greater certainty re'garding the development of commercial
land by resolving major conflicts .between the Metro Plan
.designations and. local zoning of land. planned or.zo'ned for
commercial use." (111-3)
The proposed amendment to the Metro Plan diagram and change in zone
will resolve the conflict between the existing plan designation ~d zone' and the
specific direction of the recently adopted Eugene Downt()wn Plan.
Policy 11.0 of the Commercial L.ands Study states:
"Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and
community commercial areas rather than additional major retail
cen ters."
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE CHANGE. APPLICATION,
STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 3
'}.
..'
The change in zone will promote this 5th Street Market community
~ommercia1 area by allowing commercial ~se of a vacant site adjacent to, the'
.existing co'mmercial ~ea. .
(3), The uses and density that will be allowed by the
p~oposed zoning in the location ,of the proposed c~aDge can be
served through th~ orderly extension, of. key urban facUities
and services.
The DOWJ;ltown Plan area has lo~g been within the corporate city limits of
, Eugene and has the full range of public facilitie.s and services available at 'an
adequate level.
(4) , The proposed zone change is consistent with t~e applicable
siting requirements of ' the s.pecific zone set OU~ in 'EC9.8865(4)(a)-
(n):' .
None of the specirtc zone siting requirements are' applicable to the C-2
zone. Subsection (a) lists EC 9.2150 Co~mercial Zone Siting Reauirements.
These requirements, however, apply only to the C-l and C-4 zones. None of
the othe,r siting requir~ments for specific zones are applicable. .
(5) . In cases where the NR.zoneis ~pplied ba~ed on ~C 9.2510(3),
. the property owner shall enter into. a contract~al arrangelD:ent with
the city tc) ensure the ar~a', is maintained as a natural resour,ce area
for a m.inimum of 50 years.
The NR zone is nqt applied here'. .
Dated: April/O, 2006
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION,
. STATE OF OREGON MOTOR POOL SITE - 4
.4000
.
,
~~
.- ...... .:..
4J ==-- :.; (;~) (fJj
.
,\
.
., \
\ 4100
.,.
, lIT-
,
~
~
Ufo'
,..'
i"
. .....
r - ...: ,-' .
~ 49ge"'-
~ Ii
!I; ..,~
~ . ....
~, ~ . .
. "t "I-- - - - -
~ "I~
~...I Ii
,.e--;~'-:'~ ~r-' .LI_~:"_
.l ~ 'I 5*)9 I S299 ~ saee \
cI~ ~ ~~ ~oo,
,. 3f jJt
..,. II>e"~ ~
~.'"
Y T .....
H-ge
4-700
APR 2 1 2006
I -- 300
I~ 340
I~ 450
480
t 0 ~9[)t
0
Ice sOOt
.. ... . 7, 51Dl
.foo' S20t
AVENUE sJOt
~ 5'40.
oj 5'501
5801
.... . 65()(
I- 760i
LLI 760
790f
IJJ 860C
a: 870f
l\8CM
I- 900
U) 90CK
910(
93()(
9-<<K
950(
960(
.~. _/:l_ b
-;;::--- ',..'
.,..
'.- 7
"
t } SECOND .
..
~ l-
t W .
IJJ
n:
r-' . .
U) .
,
~
l.
.
.:
..
~
....
3800 3700
~I . ~l i THIRD
,fY~2
f/6400
47.40
~\ .STREET
\.... 1 .
7800 r T9ge
I
~ SEE
SUPPLEMENT AL
NAP 'NO. I
.
7500
6
~.
7~
7 8
.. .-
STREET
~...
Ij 8500 ,.... .
, !i 1.41 ~ ~
. 2 ~ 'Y
0_____ :1:---' f;
J: fS s:1e9 . ~1L.L.tT =:.;; - $....
t!) . ~ MOtm-. r ~
_ - 8699 il
:J: .4Jt
- - -..,..
5 f
......
..... ,
.+
SEE MAP 17 03 31 11 .
Zone Change Application, State of Oregon Motor ,Pool Site
:.
..
..J
...J.
-
~
.
.s
... J.'
17 03 30
Vicinity Map
APR 2 1 2006
Zone C~ange ~pplication, State of Oregon .Motor Pool Site
Legal Description
Ba.ginning. at the 'tiortheast.. cornQr of 'Bloek 9.. of the
Original ~lat of Eugene City, aeeoriding to the plat
t.hereof recorded in Judgment Doeket."Atl. pag& 2 I
reC'qrds of Lane County, Oregon. said point being t~ot:th
8.90 48' West. 33.00 feat; and Sou.th 'O~ 051 West 33.00
f~.t. f:rQm Ci.ty of Eugene' s r~ferenee poiftt marking
. the centerline intersections of 4eb Avenue .East. and.
. Kigh $~re.et.; :t;tIllo1ng tbenee. Sout.hOD 05. t~est: 291..59
feet along the east line of Bloek 9 to a point on
. the tforcberly' right of way line ~f the South.ern Pacifie
Railroad: said po1nt being .Nonh 0" OS' East 42.23 feet
ft:"(lO'l che Sout&ea&t cOJ:1.\er of said Bloek 9. t.hence t follof.tJing
along said ~al1road.~ght of way on.. curve to 'the left.
having' a radius of 1666~09 feet. to'a point on the
ce~te.~li.ne of the now vacated alley running east :and
west. through said B.loelt 9 I the lons ehoI7d of "hleh'
bears Harth 64. 331 20.. West 292.93 feet., . with an &I'C
di.Gtaoc.e 01. 293. 30 feet ; t:hence; fJQrth 890 46 t Yest.
l2.9g feat along said cen~erline of the now vaca~ed
Elley and tbe aa'ld .railroad right of way t.o a pot-ne;
t:henc-e.; ,followug al~g . said ~h~ of way on a curve
to the left having a ~adius af 1929.91 fa~t to Q point
Oft tbe West: line of' sai.d. 81o(tk g. the lo-ng .cho\:d. of
which bears North 696 22- OO~ west 63.15 feet. ~ch an
are. distlnl:e of 63.16 feet: theoee Nort., 06 27' 30t. Ea~t
144.62 fee~ along the'West line of said B!Dek 9. to the
~tOrtbW'G5t eotn&~of said l'lDak 9: theueo, South 89.
48.' East 335.87 feet along th.e north line of Jold Slo'o.k
9 'Coo t:h:e point of beginning..' all in theClr.y of Eugene~
- LaDe County t Oregon p'
APR 2 1 2006
Zone ,Change Application, State of Oregon Motor Pool Site