Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20284 ORDINANCE NO. 20284 AN O~INANCE CONCERNING THE DANEBO NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA; AMENDING THE EUGENE- SP~NGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENER_AL PLAN DIAGIL4~M, THE BETHEL-DANEBO REFINEMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM AND THE EUGENE OVERLAY ZONE MAP; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Ci~ Councill of the City of Eugene finds that: A. On September 10,2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20234 that effected amendments to the transportation element of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and related changes to the Plan text, and adopted revisions to TransPlan, a refinement plan to the Metro Plan. B. Irtcluded in the Metro Plan text amendments was the addition of a new section entitled "Nodal Development Area CNode)," and inclusion of "ND - Nodal Development" to the text for the Legend Block on the Metro Plan Diagram. C. The Metro Plan, in describing the Nodal Development Area Designation states that "[a]reas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have potential for this type of land use pattern." Page II-E-4. TransPlan Map A1 identifies an area north and south of Royal Avenue as an area for nodal development. See area identified as 4G. D. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended, and on February 20, 2002 the Eugene City Council approved the Danebo nodal development area as one of eight priority nodal sites. E. Chapter IV of the Metro Plan sets forth procedures for arnendment of the Metro Plan, which for the City of Eugene are implemented by the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC). F. These proceedings have been initiated by the City of Eugene pursuant to procedures £br amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan, which requires approval of the Eugene City Council for Type II Metro Plan diagram amendments located inside the incorporated city limits of Eugene. G. On October 18, 2002, notice of a public hearing to be held by the Eugene planrfing commission with maps depicting the proposed amendments was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by ORS 197.610. No comment was received Ordinance- 1 r:\chapter9\LUCU\Nodes-Gen\danebonode.wpd(01 / 17/03) in response to the notice~ Notice of the public hearing was also mailed on November 8, 2002 to property owners and occupants, to persons who requested notice and to Eugene neighborhood associations. On November 20~ 2002, notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the area and notice was published in 'the Register-Guard. H~ On December 10, 2002, the Eugene planning commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and following the public hearing on January 6, 2003, cornpleted their recommendations~ The Eugene Planning Commission nnanimously recommended (5:0) t~hat the City' Council deny the amendments to the Metro Plan d~agram and concurrent automatic amendment to the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan to depict the Danebo area as a nodal development area. The Eugene Planning Commission also recommended (4:1) that the City Co-tmcil deny the amendments to the Eugene Overlay' Zone map. On January 17, 2003, notice of the public hearing on the ordinance amending the Eugene Overlay' Zone Map was mailed to the owner of each lot proposed for rezoning as required by ORS 227.286(4)~ On January 26, 2003, notice of the Eugene City Council public hearing was published in The Register-Guard and, on January' 31,2003, notice of the public hearing was mailed to ~/hose who testified before the planning commission or requested notice in writing and those who had requested to be placed on the interested parties list for the amendments. J. On February 10, 2003, the Eugene City Council conducted a public hearing on these mendments and the Eugene City Council is now ready to take action. K. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto indicating that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the requirements of applicable state and local law. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Metro Plan diagram is amended to add the ND-Nodal Development designation to the properties identified and described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The underlying designations for these properties shall remain unchanged. Section 2. Consistent with the provisions of EC 9.7750(4), the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan !and use diagram located on pages 6 and 15 of the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan is automatically amended to apply the ND-Nodal Development designation to the properties identified and desCribed on Exhibit A. Section 3. The Eugene Overlay Zone Map is amended to add the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to the properties identified and described on Exhibit B. Ordinance - 2 r:\chapter9\LUCU\Nodes-Gen\daaebonode,wpd(01/17/03) _Section 4. The above findings, and the Legislative Findings set fYrth in Exhibit C attached hereto are adopted in support of this Ordinance. S_'~ction 5~ If any section~ subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6~ Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its ackmowledgment as provided by ORS 19T625, whichever date ~s later. Passed by the C~ty Council th~s 24t~ day of February~ 2003 D [~ ity Recorder Approved by the Mayor this 24t~ day of February~ 2003 Ordinance - 3 r:\chapter9\LUCU~Nodes~Gen\danebonode.wpd(01 /17/03) EXHIBIT A Danebo Nodal Development Area Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Properties Subject to Addition of ND- Nodal Development Designation ~ & TAX LOT NUMBER -04-21-00 7-04-21-31 7-04-21-31 7-04-2 i-31 7-04-21-3 I 7-04-21--31 17-04-21-31 1100 ~6 ..... i5o0-- 1600 3500 5L~P & TAX LOT NUMBER %04-21-31 7-04-21 ~31 f 7-04-21-31 17-04-21-34 17-04-21-34 1 -04-21-34 1%04~21-34 1%04-21-34 ,000 4100 4'5oE-~ 4700 s~ 1600 700 1400 Exhibit A- 1 1%04-2D34 7-04~21-34 7-04~21-34 7-04-2D34 .04-21-34 '400 7-04-21-34 7-04-21-34 4900 Exhibit A- 2 MAP & TAX LOT NUMBER %04-21-34 1%04-21-34 5800 1-~-04-21-34 17-04~21-34 6000 -5-'~'L 6200 4OO %04-21-34 500 1 -04-21-34 1%04-21-34 6800 17-04-21-34 17-04~21-34 70~ 17-04-21-34 7200 ~' 7300'"-'- 1%04-21-34 %04-21-34,000 8100 7-04-21-34 17-04-21~i-- 17-04-21~8300 8 , 5OO -34 8600 1-42 -- 200 17-04-21-43 6500 17-04-21-43 6600 17-04-21-43 6700 17-04-21-43 174-21-43 ..... i-45-'- 17-04-21-43 7201 MAP & TAX LOT NUMBER Exhibit A- 3 Be~he~ Da~ebo Pla~ ~ap Amendments (MA 02-7) A~ea EXItIBIT B Danebo Nodal Development Area Zone Change Properties SUbject to Addition of/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone 17-04-2 ~6oo --i9oo - ...... 2ioo- ......... /ND Exhibit B- 1 Zone R*I R-1 R-1 /ND R~i R-1 R~ 1 /ND R-t Exhibit B- 2 1%04-2 55OO Rd R~I R-I R-1 /ND /ND /ND /ND /ND /ND /ND Exhibit B- 3 7-04-21-34 17-04-21~34 4 7- 4-21-34 7-04-2t-34 %04-21-34 -212~ 7500 7800 7900 7303 I .............. I R-1 I /ND Exhibit B- 4 Exhibit B- 5 Development Area ExhibR C Findings of Consistency of Danebo Nodal Development Amendments ~ith Metr° Vial Amendment and Zone Cl~ange Criteria Amendment ~riteria:, ~e Eugene C~ty Council Mil apply the folloMng criteria from Eugene Code Section 9~7730(3) to the proposed Me~o Plan men~ent to apply ~e ND Nodal Development designation: (a) The amendment must be consistent wi~ ~e relev~t statewide planning goals adopted by the L~d Conservation and Development Co~issio~; (b) Adoption of the amendmeTM must not m~e the Me~o Plan internally ~nconsistenL (a) The amendment must be consistent w~th the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the ~and Conse~afion and Development Commission. Goal 1 ~ C~t~en Involvement: To develo~ a citizen invoh, ement pro.am that insures the opportuniCy~for citizens to be involved in all phases of the ~Ianning process. The C~W has ac~Owledged provisions for citizen ~vOlvement which ~ns~e the oppo~u~ for ck~zens to be involved in all phases of the Plying process and set om requirements for such ~nv°lvement. The action t~en did not amend the citizen ~nvolvement progrm. The process for adopting tNs ord~n~ce complied Mth Goal 1 s~nce it complied Mth, and sucassed the req~re~ems o~; ~e qfizen ~volvemem provisions. The Metro PI~ men.cut application is subject to ~e public notification and he~ng processes ~opted by ~e C~W of Eugene }n 9.7735, as ~odified by the Eugene C~W CoUnCil for ~his Co~ncil4~fiated ~mendm;m under EC 9.7750(1), ~d ~n EC 9.5520. of a public hearing on . No public and m Register-Guar& On sed 6, 2003, completed Exhibit C ~ 1 On Janu~ 17, 2003, notice of the public hearing on the ordinance amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map was mailed to the Owner of each lot proposed for rezoning as required by ~RS 22Z286(~). On january 26, 2003, notice of th~ E~gene City council publi~ hearir~ was published in The Register-GUard and, on january 3 ~, 2003, notice of t~e public he~ing was mailed to those who testified before the planning co~ission or requested notice in w~iting and those who had requested to be placed on the interested parties list for the amendments~ ©n February' 10, 2003~ the Eugene City Council held a public hearing to consider approval, ~o&?cation, or derfial of the amendmems. These processes af~¥rd ample opportunity for citizen mvolYement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent With Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 ~ Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis j~br all -deCiSions and actions related t° ~s'e of/and and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions, The ordinance as Goal 2 met. Goal 2 requires that plans be Bethel School of Land Conservation mud Goal 2. Goal 3 ~ Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricMtura/ /ands. The amencLments are for property located within the city limits and do not affect ~y l~d designated lbr Goal 3 agriCult~al use. Therefore, StateMde PI~Ng Go~ 3 does ~ot apply. Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve fi>rest lands by maintaining the fi~rest land base and to Protect the state's forest econOmy by making possible economi~[¢ ~d~cient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting efforest ~ee s~e~ies as/he lea~ing use on/brest land consistent wi}h sound management ~/s;il, aX~ water, and fish and wit~ resources and to Provide for recreational ~pportunities and a~icMture. The ~en~ents are ibr prope~y located wkhin the ci~ limits ~d do not ~fect ~y land designated for forest use. T~ere}bre, StateWide PlanN~ Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 ~ Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve Exhibit C - 2 open space and protect natural and scenic resources. These amendments do not create or amend the area's list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a code provision adopted in order to proteCt a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requiremems of G~at 5, do not allo~ new use~ that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource s~te and do not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and iml2rove the quali~~ of the air, water and land resources of the state. The regulations ~br the Nodal DeveloPment overlay zone implement the nodal development c0nce~; an apProach to integration o~ land uSe anc~ transportation planning that seeks }o ~ncrease the us~ Of alt;r~ative modes ~)f transportation and reduce demand ~or auto~nobile-related transportation facilities. Increasing ~he use of alternative modes of transportatiOn will help m improve regional and local air quaiitv. Therefore~ the amendments are consistent With Statew~de Goal 6. GOal 7 ~ Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: Toprotect [ifk and property from natural disasters and hazards'. there~4th. ~erefore, the arnendmems are cons :o hazards normally associated with steep such as ea~quakes and severe wSnter storms can normally associated StatewSde Planning Goal 7. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To Satisj~J the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and viSitors and, Where aPPropriate~ to provide for the siting of necessa~T recreatiOna! facilities including desti~ation resorts~ Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to the citizens of the state. The proposed designation Mil not impact Provision of recreation facilities. Access to recreation opportunities, including a furore City park located on the north side of Royal Avenue, MI1 not be ~f~Ected as a result of the proposed amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent Mth StateMde planning Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the sta, te for a Variety of economic a~tivlties vital to the healfh, wel~[~re, and prosperi~ of Oregon s citizens. Exhibk C - 3 depicts an area as a nodal development · to provide adequate opportunities for a variety are have Therefore~ commercial or industrial designated land. Goal 9, Goal 10 - g: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of'the state~ a nodal development the property or residential which is included within the no direct impact on the existing supply of consistent with St~ttex~id; Plarming Goal 11 ~ Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arran gemen~ of public facilities and services to serve -as a framework for urban and r~ral development. The ~ea affected by th~s ord~n~ce ~s located ~n the cky l~mits ~d served by pubi~c facilities which the existing level of senSce is MeqUme m se~e the needs of existing and future deVeloPment. Therefore, ~e mendments are consiStent Mth Stamwide Planing Goal 11. G al 12 - Transpo~atmn, To prowde and encourage a safe, convement and economw tram~ortation system Goal 12 ~s ~mpternemed t~ou~ the Tr~spo~ation Pla~ng Rule (TP~ OAR 660-I 2). The Eugene-Springfield Metropolkan ~ea Trmnspo~ation Pi~ (TramPle) provides ~e regional policy ~meWork t~ough w~ch the TPR ~s enacted at the local level. The addition of ~e Nod~ DeveloPment" M~tro PI~ Diagrm designation ~plements policy direction in the Tr~sPtan, ac~oWledged fOr compli~ce with ~o~ 12 in 2001. TransPl~ Land Use Policies 1 ~d 5, which were also adopted as Metro Plan Transpo~ation Policies F-1 and F-5, specifically relate to nod~ development ~d ~e li~ed below ~th finings folloMng each: Land Use Policy J: Apply the nodal developmem strate~ in areas selected by each E~bit C - 4 jurisdiction that have ident~fed potential for this type of transportation efficient land use pattern. · as potential for node new' nodes~ in addition to the Royal : for nodal property Land Use Policy 5: Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal DevelOpment' designation to areas ,'elected by each jurisdiction, ~a-dOpt and apply measures to protec[ designate[i nodes from incompatible ~develo~ment and adopt a sche&-le~br completion Cnodal devel°PmentPl~ns and implementing ordinances. The amendments specifically addresses t~s policy by applying the ND~ Nodal Developmem Metr° Plan diagrar~ des~gna-tion and the/NI5 Nocial bevel;pment overlay zone to all ~arcels wkhin an area selected b~~ the Cky of Eugene as a Priority ~odal develOp~nent area. zoned commercial amd requirements of the base of 8 ~ts per net acre in comtmercial and industrial development are intended to assumed in the TransPlan modeling (39 employees/acre). Exhibit C - 5 Transportation Planrfing Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requkement: (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use re~'~lations Whfch sign~c~ntly affect a tranSportatiOn faCility s}mll assure t,5at allowed land uses are consistent with the identified fimction, capaciO; andperfbrmance standards (e.g. level of'service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the faciliO~. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and per[brrfca nce standards of the transportation fi~cility; - (b) Amending the TS? to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile rrm, el and meet travel needs through othe~ modes; or (d) Amending the TSP to modify the plannedfUnction, capaci02 and perfbrmance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedes~ian friendIy development where multimodaI travel choices are provided. amendment sign~cant[y affects a transportation fi~cility if it- system; of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which or the minimum acceptable uses. for the base base zones~ The fND overlay zone w/Il limit the range of uses in commercial and still provide a wide range of allowed commercial and industrial In the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, Royal Avenue and Danebo Road are classified as a minor arterials. No change ~n the fimcfional Classification of these streets will result from the amendments. In addk~on, no changes are proposed to the standards which ~mplement the functional classification system. tn developing TransPIan~ the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) conducted modelh~g using Exhibit C - 6 29 priority nodes, with node boundaries as showxa on the map of Potential Nodal Development Arias in ~_ppendix A of TransPlan. Since the Eugene City council apProved bOundary adjustmentk ~o several nodes, and added one high-priorky node that ~as not shown on the T~sPlan map, the Oregon Department of Tr~sp;rtati°~ fimded an update of model data to reflect the revised nodal area boundaries as Part ;f Eugene's 2001'200~ Tr~s;o~ii;~ an}i Grow~ Management (TGM) grant for nodal development ~mplementation. T~e~p~t~;d~odel data ~s based on 30 priority nodes, adding the one high-Priority node in EUgene that was not shown on the Transblan n~.aP~ than level of service on this segment of the roadway~ Based on the findings above and these model results, the proposed amendments to apply the ND NOdal DeVeloPmeni Metro PIan diagram designation and ~o ~pply the/ND Nodal D~¢elopment OVerlay zone Will not significantly a~fect a transportation facility. Based on these factorsl the amen&ents are in co~liance ~}th OAR 660-~12-0060. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal Goal 13 ~ Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Goal 13 states, in parL that land use planning should, "to the maximum extent possible, combine increasing density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater nergy efficiency (see Go~ 13, gmdehne 4). The overall mtent of nodal development ~s to proG&e comPac~ 'urban level dev;lopment along high capaCity transit corridors. 5he location of ~e noda1 de[,elopment area proximate to Beltli~e (a maj;r a~erial), and directly adjacent to RoYal Avenue a~d Danebo t~oad (both minor arterials) }ccornplist~es this inte~. T~eretbre, the amendments are Consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbankzafion: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition~from rural to Urban land use. For all of'the properties affected by this ordinance, all necessary urban services are in place. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with StateWide planning Goal 14. Goal 15 - Wffiamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the I¥illamette River as the f~llamette River Greenw®, Exhibit C - 7 ~e,s?je? sites, are ,not within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, Statewide Planning ~$om ~ > ctoes no~ apply. Goals 16 throngh 19 (Estuarine Resources, COastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources): There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the Metro Plan boundary. Therefore, Storewide plannina GOals 16 through 19 do not apply. findings nodal and Metro Plan amendment is clearly acknowledged by the state. ~nendment is consistent vdth Goals. EC 9.77300)(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. the the Metro Plan. necessary or proposed, the Plan internally inconsistent. the fact Amendment to, the Bet_hel=Dane_bo Refineme~ Plain Eugene Code Section 9.7750(4) provides that the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement plan diagram if no amendment to the refi~ement plan text is invOlved. Adoption of these Metro Plan diagram amendments, therefore, automatically amends the Bethel- Danebo Refinement Plan diagrams (pages 6 and 15 of the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan). Exhibit C. 8 Findin_gs of Consistenc~ with ZOne Change_.... Criteria: The Eugene City Council MI1 apply the following criteria from Eugene Code Section 9.8865 to the Pro~sed zone change to ap~lk ~he/ND Nodal Development o~;rlay Zone: (1) The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Plan. ~he wrkten t;xt of the Metro Plan shalI take Precedence over the diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist (2) The proposed zone change is ~onsistent With applicable adopted refh~ement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. -~ (3) 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 wkh the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in...: (5) In cases 'Wh~re the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3)~ the property shall enter into a comractual ag;~ement wi~ the city' to ensure the is maintained as a natural resource area for a rrfirfimum of 50 years~ (1) The proposed change is consistent w~th applicable provisions of the Metro Plan_, The ~ri~ten text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence o,~,er the an diagram wh ere apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. dThe proposed zone change is consistent with both the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram and text as escfib~d below-: Metro Plan _Land Use _and Related Text The Metro Plan Diagram designates the subject parcels for low and medium density residential, and commercial development. The establishment of the ND Nodal DeVelopment Designation on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram Mil not change those designations. The addition of the/ND Overlay zone to the subject properties is consistent Mth the properties' designations. ~ specifies a density range -ap to 10 Residential designation specifies a dens~y range of /ND Overlay Zone, requires a minimum densi~} of R-1~5 and 15 units per net acre for the are conSistent Mth the Metro Plan diagram Me_ t~m PL~ Policies Exhibit C - 9 The ~bllowing Metro Plan policies are applicable to the proposed zone change: Metro Plan Element A, Policy A. 11 specifically states: Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within pransportation-ey~icient nodes (Ch. III-A, as amended 1999). The proposed zone change facilitates the above policy by allowing an increased level of residential densky and use on property that is directly adjacent to existing commercial services. Furthermore, the relatively close proximity of the subject parcel to Beltline Road also ~hcititates the above policy by locating higher density- development in close proximity to a major transportation system. As such, the subjec~ proposal complies Mth Metro Plan Element A, Policy A. 11. Metro Plan Element A, Policy A. 17 states: Provide opportunities for a fidl range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost and location. The establishment of the/ND overlay zone will provide additional implementation tools which promote development patterns offering a variety of housing ~pes and development patterns. Metro Plan Element A~ Policy A.35 states: Coordinate local residential land use and housing ptanning with other elements of this p[an, including public facilities and services, and other local plans, to ensure consistency among policies. The application of the ,2qD overlay zone is itself, an acknoMedgment that the su'~ect sites should be developed in a m~er which more efficiently utilizes the existing infrastructure and services h~ the area. ~e subject properties were identified ~ sites which possess these characteristics. The proposed zone change Mil therefore help to achieve this policy. Metro Plan Element F, Policy F.1 states: Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that haYe ident~ed potential fbr this type of transportation efficient land use pattern. TransPlan identifies the area within which the subject parcels are located as having potential for nodal development (Node 4G). In February 2002~ the Eugene City Co-uncil selected node 4G as one of eight new nodes, in addition to the Royal and Chase Gardens nodal development areas, it wanted to designate and zone for nodal development in FY03. In March 2002, the Eugene City Exhibit C - 10 Cotmcil initiated proceedings to apply the 'ND Metro Plan diagram designation and/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone to the Danebo nodal development area. The Metro Plan amendment fkcilkates the application of the nodal development strategy outlined in the policy above and the City is further encouraging nodal development in this area by applying the/ND nodal development overlay zone to all property within the node. Metro Plan Element F, Policy F.5 states: Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the _ND, Nodal Development designation m areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a sched~de J:br completion qf nodal development plans and implementing ordinances. The amendments specifically addresses this policy by applying the ND, Nodal Developmen~ Metro Plan diagran~ and the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to all properties whhin the Danebo nodal developrnent area. The City of Eugene has adopted the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to protect designated nodes from incompatible development. In compliance whh Land Use Policy 5 and the Transportation Plannh~g Rule, the/ND overlay zone contains a list of prohibked auto-oriented uses, does not allow a use to include a drive-through facility and limks the square footage of 'building area on the ground floor for new buildings designed to be occupied by rets51 uses. These requirements apply to all new development on vacant land, all new sm~cmres on already developed sites and expansions of 30% or more of the total existing building square footage on the development ske~ wkh the further lknkation that expansion of a structure for a prohibited use or expansion/addition of a drive-through facility as part of the expansion of an existing structure are prohibited. The/ND overlay zone also contains mh~mum residential density requirements tbr land zoned for residential use, minimmn~ floor area ratios for land zoned commercial and industrial, and development standards which apply in addition to the requirements of the base zone~ The/ND overlay zone requkes a minimum residential density' of 8 milts per net acre in new subdivisions in R-1 and R-1.5 zones, 15 units per net acre in R-2, 25 units per net acre in R- 3 and 30 units per acre in R-4, These are l:figher than the mbSmum residential denskies in the base zone and slightly higher than the minimum residential denskies assumed in the TransPlan rnodeling (LDR, 7 unks/acre; MDR, 16 units/acre; HDR, 25 unks/acre), 'thereby encouraging concentrations of population, employment and retail activhy that is essential for the development oft'he node, The floor area ratios for commercial and industrial development are kntended to achieve the employment density assumed in the TransPlan modeling (39 employees/acre). Therefore, the proposed zone change wSll be consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinemen~ plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Exhibit C ~ 11 The Bethel~Danebo Refinement Plan is the applicable refinement plan fbr this area. The base zoning districts of the subject properties coincide with the plan's land use diagram designations. Application of the/ND overlay zone on these properties supports the plan's land use designations. The BetheLDanebo Refinement Plan identifies three nodal development areas within the plan boundaries. One of these comprises apProxim~ately 40 acres at the southwest comer of Royal and Danebo Road (Tax Lots 100, 202, 203 and 300). The Bethel-Danebo Refinement ?lan refers to this area as the "Roy'al-Danebo Development Node" (Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan~ page 15). Specific policy language related to the node states: A residential node shall be developed at the southwest corner of Royal Avenue and Danebo Avenue to accommodate ]0 acres of neighborhood commercial development and 30 acres of medium-density residential development (Pg ]3, Bethel-Danebo Refinement Pla,). The proposed zone change will apply the/ND Overlay Zone to ~s previously identified Development Node. As it relates to this po~on of the nodal development area, the proposed zone change complies with 'the above policy. 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 thcilities and services. ~1 utility services (water, sewer and electricity) are currently available to the subject node. Wastewater service is currently available to serve the vacant properties via a 12" line in Royal Avenue and a 21" line in D~ebo Road. Water and electrical service, telephone and other utilities are also provided along both s~eets. A 21" stormwater system also exists along both Danebo Road and Royal Avenue. Full services are provided to the developed areas within the node, including the Candlelight neighborhood. The City owns a 12 acre park site on Royal Avenue providing future recreational services to the area~ Lane Transit District (LTD) provides transk service along Royal Avenue and on Danebo Avenue~ Educational services are currently provided by Bethel School District 52, which has constructed a new school m the west m serve future ~o~h in the area. Fire, EMS and police services are all provided by the City of Eugene. All needed facilities are therefore available to the site. In addition, decisions related rathe specific on-site design of the extension of said facilities can be accommodated through the development process. Based on these factors, staff conclude that the proposed zone change is in compliance with this criterion. (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set Exhibit C - 12 out for the specific zone in...: There are no specific siting requirements for the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone. (5) In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3)~ the property owner shall enter into a contractual agreement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. his application is not proposing application of the NR, Natural Resource zone to the subject property. As such, this criterion does not apply~