HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan (Huntington Crossing)
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan Land Use Diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to
Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and
Providing an Effective Date (Huntington Crossing)
Meeting Date: February 22, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lydia McKinney
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5485
ISSUE STATEMENT
Popcorn LLC, as applicant, requests a Metro Plan amendment and Willakenzie Area Plan amendment
for a 6.89-acre parcel located on the east side of Old Coburg Road, north of Chad Drive at 89295, 89297
and 89317 Old Coburg Road (please see attached maps). The applicant requests to change the current
Metro Plan designation from Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential, change the current
Willakenzie Land Use Diagram from Special Light Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and
change the Willakenzie Area Plan Coburg-Crescent Subarea diagram from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential. The Planning Commissions recommend approval of this request. Please
refer to Exhibit C, Planning Commission Agenda Item Summery and Exhibit D, Staff Findings for
further background on this request.
The proposed Metro Plan amendment is a two-jurisdiction (Type II) Metro Plan amendment inside the
Urban Growth Boundary but outside the city limits of Eugene. In accordance with the two-jurisdiction
Metro Plan amendment procedures outlined in E.C. 9.7740(4), the governing bodies’ decision on the
requested actions must be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the Planning
Commissions; no new evidence is allowed at the council hearing (E.C. 9.7740(4)). The decision is
quasi-judicial.
BACKGROUND
The City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint pubic hearing on October 24,
2006, to consider the proposed amendment. Following the close of the public hearing, both Planning
Commissions deliberated and passed motions to support the proposed amendment. It should be noted
that a separate refinement plan amendment was submitted in the event any text amendment to the
Willakenzie Area Plan was necessary. No text amendments were found necessary. Therefore,
consistent with the provisions of EC 9.7750(4), a Metro Plan amendment automatically amends the
refinement plan diagram when no text amendment is proposed.
One letter of testimony from an adjoining neighbor in opposition to the proposed plan amendment was
received during the public comment period for the public hearing before the Planning Commissions.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070222\S070222A.doc
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Code requires that a Metro Plan diagram amendment be consistent with the Metro Plan as well
as the Statewide Planning Goals. Existing policies support both the current Metro Plan designation of
Campus Industrial and the proposed Medium Density Residential designation. Exhibit D of Attachment
A, Staff Findings, evaluates the request relative to all applicable Metro Plan amendment criteria. Key
applicable policies from the Metro Plan related to the request are noted below.
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.11)
Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and
location. (Policy A.17)
Economic Element
Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. (Policy B.5)
Increase 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)
Transportation Element Policy
Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation system. (Finance
Policy F.36)
COUNCIL OPTIONS
After holding the public hearing, the City Council may:
1.As recommended by the Planning Commissions: Approve the Metro Plan amendment and automatic
refinement plan amendment to change the designation of the subject parcels from Campus Industrial
to Medium Density Residential by approving the draft ordinance and findings;
2.Approve the Metro Plan amendment and automatic refinement plan amendment with modified
findings; or
3.Deny the Metro Plan amendment and automatic refinement plan amendment based on conflicts with
Statewide Goals or Metro Plan policies.
If the council chooses to deliberate independent of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, City
Council action on this item is tentatively currently scheduled for March 12, 2007.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation
that the request complies with all applicable approval criteria, and that the Metro Plan amendment be
approved, automatically amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Refinement Plan.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070222\S070222A.doc
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is suggested as action is currently scheduled for March 12, 2007.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A: Map showing proposed changes in the Metro Plan designation
Exhibit B: Map showing proposed changes in the refinement plan designation Willakenzie Area
Plan Land Use Diagram
Exhibit C: Map showing proposed changes in the Willakenzie Area Plan Coburg-Crescent Subarea
diagram
Exhibit D: Staff findings (revised January 16, 2007)
B.Planning Commission draft minutes dated October 24, 2006
C.Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary dated October 24, 2006
D.Staff findings dated October 24, 2006
E.Letter of Testimony from Judith Van dated October 23, 2006
F.Applicant’s application materials submitted August 24, 2006
G. Applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis submitted August 24, 2006
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lydia McKinney
Telephone: 682-5485
Staff E-Mail: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070222\S070222A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM;
AMENDING THE WILLAKENZIE AREA PLAN PURSUANT TO
SECTION 9.7750(4) OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(HUNTINGTON CROSSING).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that :
A.
The applicant, Pop Corn LLC, submitted an application to the City of
Eugene for an amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Willakenzie
Area Plan.
B.
The amendments contained in this Ordinance are based on the
application submitted and the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission.
C.
The City of Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning
Commission held a joint public hearing on the amendments contained in this Ordinance
on October 24, 2006, and the Eugene Planning Commission has forwarded its
recommendations to the Eugene City Council for amendments to the Metropolitan Area
General Plan Land Use Diagram as shown Exhibit A, and the Willakenzie Area Plan
Land Use Diagram as shown on Exhibit B.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use
Diagram for the property identified as Tax Lots 500, 600, and 700 of Assessor’s Map
17-03-16-41, located east of Old Coburg Road at 89295, 89297, and 89317 Old Coburg
Road, is amended from a designation of Campus Industrial to a designation of Medium
Density Residential as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein.
Section 2.
Consistent with the provisions of Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene
Code, 1971, the Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Diagram located between pages 19
and 20 of the Willakenzie Area Plan is automatically amended to redesignate the land
referenced in Section 1 above, from Special Light Industrial to Medium Density
Residential, as shown on the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein and the
Willakenzie Area Plan Coburg-Crescent Subarea diagram located at page 62 of the
Willakenzie Area Plan is automatically amended to redesignate the land referenced in
Section 1 above, from Campus Industrial to Medium-Density Residential, as shown on
the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein.
Ordinance -
1
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070222\S070222A-attA.doc
Section 3.
The findings set forth in the attached Exhibit D are adopted as
findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 4.
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 hereof.
Section 5.
Nothwithstanding 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 the
Lane County Board of Commissioners has adopted an ordinance containing identical
provisions to those described in sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance, whichever is first.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of February, 2007 _____ day of February, 2007
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance -
2
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070222\S070222A-attA.doc
Attachment A
Exhibit A
Huntington Crossing Metro Plan
Amendment (MA 06-3)
Existing Plan Designation: Campus Industrial
N
Proposed Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit D
Staff Findings
Huntington Crossing
(MA 06-3)
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (MA 06-3)
The proposed amendment would change the current Metro Plan land use designation from Campus
Industrial to Medium Density residential. While there is no corresponding development proposal
under review, the applicant indicates that the intent is to develop a mixed use development to
include residential units and approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space. A mixed use
proposal would require approval through the planned unit development process within a medium
residential zone. As no formal development proposal is under review, staff’s analysis and findings
are based solely on the request to re-designate the property as Medium Density Residential.
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) 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
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.
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 set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reviewing these amendments 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
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of
the amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission/Lane County Planning
Commission public hearing on October 24, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the City mailed notice
of the proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as
required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. On August 30, 2006, referrals
concerning the pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), City of Springfield, and Lane County. The Cal Young Neighborhood Association and
City departments were also mailed a copy of the application on September 22, 2006 consistent with
the Eugene Code. On September 22, 2006 notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
On October 4, 2006, notice of the joint Planning Commissions public hearing was published in the
Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On September 22, 2006, notice was also
posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5). An additional public hearing before the Eugene City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners will be scheduled following Planning
Commission action. Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for that hearing.
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 1
The process for adopting these amendments complies 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 these 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 these amendments. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments 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 the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do 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 these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and,
therefore, 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 amendments do 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.
The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the
PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5
resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 2
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UGB area.
The subject property does not include a Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do 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 do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 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. The record shows that the City can reasonably expect that future development of the site
will comply with environmental laws. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject 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 not located within known areas of natural disasters or
hazards. The subject property is outside the 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, these amendments are 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 of private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore the proposed amendments
will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing
or future public recreational facilities. As such, the amendments are 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.
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 3
Goal 9 requires that the city ‘[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes,
types, location, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with
plan policies[.]” OAR 660 Division 9 is LCDC’s Goal 9 administrative rule. Among other things,
the rule requires that cities complete an “Economic Opportunities Analysis.” OAR 660-009-0015.
Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and Commercial
Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that cities
designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR 660-
009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply “at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3)).” In addition, OAR 660-
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations of lands in excess of two acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) Demonstrate that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660-Division 9; or (b) Amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent
with the requirements of Division 9.
The applicant proposed a change in plan designation of land in excess of two acres from the
Campus-Industrial plan designation. The amendments will decrease the supply of available
industrial land by approximately 6.89 acres for the purpose of facilitating a transit-oriented
medium-density residential development. The proposed change is consistent with the parts of the
Metro Plan that address the requirements of OAR 660 Division 9 (option (a), above). The City’s
Industrial Lands Inventory is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. Currently, the City of Eugene has a surplus of industrial land. Additionally, as
shown in the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report (1993) and the Metropolitan Industrial
Lands Policy Report, the subject property was not included in the inventory of the Metropolitan
Plan Industrial Lands Study (See Industrial Lands Special Study Map, Sites in Subregion #5), so the
re-designation from Campus Industrial of this specific parcel of will not affect the formally
acknowledged inventory of industrial land. The proposed amendments are 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 request to re-designate 6.89 acres from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential increases the supply and availability of residential lands. The property
affected by the proposed amendments was not included in supply of land available for residential
development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study, so the re-
designation will result in an increase in buildable residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are
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 is located outside the city limits but inside Eugene’s Urban
Growth Boundary. The existing level of public facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs
of existing and future development, as public facilities are available or can be extended to the
subject property. Public Works staff have indicated that a change in designation from Campus
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 4
Industrial to Medium Density Residential will reduce the demand on public facilities and services
and on the capacity needed to serve the subject properties. In addition, while the parcel is currently
outside City limits, annexation is a requirement of any proposed development. City of Eugene
Public Works staff have provided referral comments that indicate public facilities and services are
available for the purpose of annexation. The provision of these amendments does not affect the
planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore, the 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), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR states that when land use changes, including amendments
to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service and/or
volume to capacity ratio) of the facility.
Under the TPR, an amendment to a comprehensive plan significantly affects an existing or planned
transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(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 and considering both existing transportation facilities and planned
transportation facilities as required by the TPR:
A.Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility;
B.Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan; or
C.Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
The proposed diagram amendment does not change the functional classification or a transportation
facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system. Therefore, it is
does not have a significant effect under (a) or (b). Further, it does not have a significant effect
under (c).
To address the TPR, the applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The City of
Eugene and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) collaborated on a scope of work for
the TIA for the proposed plan amendment. Roadways near the development site include Old
Coburg Road, classified as a major collector, North Game Farm Road, classified as a minor arterial,
Chad Drive, classified as a Major Collector, and Crescent Drive, classified as a minor arterial.
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 5
These classifications address the planned transportation needs of the surrounding area. The
proposed re-designation is not inconsistent with the functional classification of the existing and
planned transportation facilities.
The TIA evaluates the current performance of existing facilities and the performance of these
facilities as a result of the amendments to re-designate 6.89 acres from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential. The TIA provides that the existing designation projects that 256 trips
during the afternoon peak hour and 2,389 trips during average daily weekday traffic will be
generated by the development site, based on a most reasonable development scenario. Staff have
reviewed the analysis and findings in the TIA and concur with the applicant’s conclusions regarding
a most reasonable development scenario. “Trip” is defined as a single directional vehicle trip that
has one origin and one destination. “Peak hour” is defined as the four highest contiguous 15-minute
traffic volume periods.
The TIA further provides that under the proposed land use designation change, and subsequent zone
change to R-2 Medium Density Residential, 93 trips during the afternoon peak hour and 974 trips
during average daily weekday traffic will be generated by the development. The applicant has
provided these findings based on the maximum number of units of 20 units per gross acre, as
provided in the Metro Plan. The TIA also provides findings based on the “master site plan”, which
is not part of this application, but the applicant indicates this proposal will follow upon successful
re-designation of the property. Under the proposed master plan, it is projected that 117 trips during
the afternoon peak hour and 1,086 trips during the average daily weekday traffic will be generated
by the development. These figures indicate that the re-designation of the subject property from
Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential will result in a reduction in the traffic generated
by the subject property. City of Eugene and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have
concurred that the proposed re-designation will not significantly affect the existing or planned
transportation facility. As such, the amendments are consistent with Statewide planning Goal 12.
Old Coburg Road, adjacent to the western boundary of the development site, is currently under
Lane County jurisdiction. Referral comments from Lane County Public Works staff indicate that
Old Coburg Road is rural in nature and not currently suited for urban development, and that the
Transportation Impact Analysis does not address Lane County Chapter 15 requirements. The
improvement of Old Coburg is currently a capital improvement project (CIP) called the Chad Drive
extension project. This project is slated for construction in the spring/summer of 2008. In the event
that the applicant chooses to proceed with development prior to the CIP, the development proposal
would trigger City code requirements to review Old Coburg Road for capacity. As also noted by
Lane County staff, in the event that Old Coburg Road remains in Lane County jurisdiction at the
time a development proposal is submitted for the subject property, Lane County staff would have
another opportunity to review a TIA.
This amendment will actually reduce existing potential impacts to the existing and planned
transportation facilities. Therefore the proposed change will not result in a significant affect. The
proposed amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Goal 13 requires that land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
manage all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles. Changing the designation from
Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential does not specifically impact energy conservation
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 6
or preclude sound energy conservation measures. The proposed amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The amendments do not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
already within the Urban Growth Boundary. 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.
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 amendments will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 6.89 acres of land from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential 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.
The applicant provided findings regarding how the Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent
with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. Those policies found to be applicable to this
request are addressed below. Although the applicant addressed additional Metro Plan policies, they
do not provide further, relevant guidance or mandatory approval criteria with respect to the
proposal. However, to the extent that they may be applicable, the applicant’s findings are
incorporated herein by reference as further evidence that the amendment does not make the Metro
Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram included in the applicant’s written materials is outdated, and not
applicable. The Metro Plan diagram in the applicant’s written materials shows the northern portion
of the subject property as designated for Low Density Residential use. However, the applicable
Metro Plan diagram (Ordinance No. 20319) does show the entire subject property designated as
Campus Industrial. The portions of the applicant’s written statement addressing the Low Density
Residential designation, and the Metro Plan diagram in the applicant’s materials, are not
incorporated into these findings
The following polices are applicable to this request:
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 7
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.11)
Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and
location. (Policy A.17)
As noted by the applicant, the area proposed for designation as medium density residential is
adjacent to the Chad Drive employment area to the southwest, and within .9 miles of the Springfield
RiverBend medical employment area and the Gateway commercial center, which are in proximity
to major transportation systems, including the existing street system and LTD services. Re-
designation of the subject property to medium density residential provides additional opportunities
for additional housing types, density, size, cost and location. The applicant’s proposal is not
inconsistent with the applicable policies.
Economic Element
Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. (Policy
B.5)
Increase 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 policies above are brought into question with the request to remove the Campus Industrial
Designation. According to the applicant’s written materials, adjacent property owners with
industrial uses were consulted regarding the availability of this parcel for purchase, and there was
no desire of the surrounding property owners to acquire the property. In addition, there is currently
vacant industrial land in the area, so the re-designation would not preclude existing industrial
activities from expansion. The applicant also consulted a number of real estate agents and Metro
Partnership staff who indicated that the size and orientation of the site posed significant limitations
for industrial development. The suitability of the subject property for industrial activities and the
consolidation potential is limited based on the relatively narrow, long lot configuration and the 6.89
acres size of the parcel. The areas for campus industrial uses were typically envisioned as large
campus style developments. The Land Use Designations section of the Metro Plan describes a 50-
acre minimum lot size for parcels over 50 acres, to protect undeveloped sites from piecemeal
development until a site development plan can be approved by the responsible city. As suitability
of this parcel for location or expansion of industrial uses is constrained, the proposed amendments
are not inconsistent with the applicable Economic Element policies.
Transportation Element Policy
Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation system.
(Finance Policy F.36)
This finance policy provides direction to the City of Eugene to expand system development charge
(SDC) methodologies to address the impact of new development on state, county and transit
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 8
facilities. Currently, SDC methodologies charge new development only for the City’s portion of the
arterial-collector system. The intent of this policy, as described in Transplan, is for the City to
consider additional system development charges to mitigate onsite or adjacent impacts. To the
extent that this policy is applicable to the proposal, development resulting from the proposed
amendment would be subject to SDCs.
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 9
ATTACHMENT B
MINUTES
Joint Planning Commissions-Eugene and Lane County
Council Chamber-Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon
October 24, 2006
5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Eugene Planning
Commissioners; Jim Carmichael, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel-
Zdzienicki, Nancy Nichols, John Sullivan, Todd Johnston, Lane County Planning Com-
missioners; Lisa Gardner, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Lydia McKinney, Eugene Planning
and Development Department; Kent Howe, Stephanie Schultz, Lane County Land Man-
agement Division.
ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, Eugene Planning Commission.
STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF OCTOBER 24, 2006
Ms. McKinney provided a brief overview of the proposal before the commissions, which was a request to
amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) and the Willakenzie Area
Refinement Plan. She indicated that the commissions' recommendation on the matter would be forwarded
to the Lane Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. The property in question was
currently designated for Campus Light Industrial and was proposed to be redesigned Medium-Density
Residential (MDR).
Mr. Nystrom said the property was not annexed to the City but was inside the urban growth boundary,
requiring action by both jurisdictions. There was no rezoning being proposed at this time.
Mr. Dignam raised the issue of whether the Lane County Planning Commission would need to take action
on the refinement plan amendment. Mr. Howe did not think it inappropriate.for the commission to do so
and suggested that the commission err on the side of caution.
Mr. Lawless asked if staff recalled a similar plan amendment from C-I to R-2 (MDR). Mr. Nystrom said
no.
Mr. Carmichael questioned whether the Lane. County Planning Commission was sufficiently knowledge-
able about the refinement plan policies to make a decision about the amendment. Mr. Nystrom said that
given there was no need for text amendments, it could be argued that the refinement plan would be
automatically amended by. the Metro Plan amendment. He acknowledged that the commission might be
uneasy about acting on the refinement plan.
Responding to a question from Ms. Arkin, Mr. Nystrom briefly described the City's refinement planning
process.
The study session adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
October 24, 2006
Page 1
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY OF EUGENE AND'LANE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSIONS
Huntington Crossing (MA 06-3, RA 06-2)
Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission.
Mr. Carmichael opened the public hearing of the Lane County Planning Commission.
Commissioners'introduced themselves.
Mr. Duncan noted the applications to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan
(Metro Plan) and Willakenzie Refinement Plan that were before the two commissions and called for any
conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts.
Mr. Lawless noted that he was doing work on some nearby properties but did not think that constituted a
conflict of interest. Mr. Hledik and Mr. Duncan both !ndicated they visited the site but no information
was shared.
Staff members introduced themselves.
'.Ms. McKinney provided the staff report for the Huntington Crossing proposal, confirming that the request
.before the two commissions was an amendment to the Metro Plan and an amendment to the Willakenzie
Refinement Plan to redesignate the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium-Density
Residential (MDR). The property, a 6.89 parcel, was inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) but
outside the Eugene 'city limits. Ms. McKinney noted that colored maps of the site were available.
'Ms. McKinney reviewed the public notice and noted that a letter was received after the preliminary staff
findings had been complete. She provided copies of the letter as well as a letter mailed by the same
property owner a few days after the application was received.
, Ms. McKinney cited the applicable criteria found in Eugene Code sections 9.7730(3) and 9.8424. She
said that staff reviewed the application in light of the criteria and concluded that the amendment proposals
satisfied all criteria. She recommended the commissions approve the request.
Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing.
Larry E. Reed~ 4765 Village Plaza Loop, representing JRH Transportation and Land Use Planning,
introduced Steve Ward, son of Jack Ward, principal of the current owner. He said that Mr. Ward would
be the developer of the property.
Mr. Reed said a review of the City's land use and transportation documents indicated the site offered a
rare opportunity for MDR development along a future major collector, the Chad Drive extension. He said
that the Chad Drive project was listed in TransPlan and was it now coming to fruition. He called attention
to the 30 percent plans developed by the City showing the Chad Drive extension, which were mounted on
easels in the ,meeting room.
October 24, 2006
Page 2
Mr. Reed briefly described the scope of the proposed project, which would.be a mix of town homes, some
standard apartment units, and garden apartment type units. He said that statewide planning goals and the
Willakenzie Refinement Plan policies offered policy support for the requested change. Mr. Reed said that
conclusion was supported by the staff recommendation for approval of the request. He said that as a result
of the Metro Plan amendment, the Willakenzie Refinement Plan Map would also be amended. No policy
or text changes were being requested.
. Mr. Reed reviewed the public outreach done by his firm with neighborhood groups, neighborhood.
property owriers associations, and other interested parties. He called attention to Exhibit M, which was a
flier regarding a neighborhood meeting held by his firm. He said that most surrounding property owners
had no opinion while others supported the proposal for residential development in favor of an industrial
use.
Mr. Reed thought the proposal an opportunity to create more high-density residential development in the
community. The location was supported by planning policies. He "believed there was a need for the
housing contemplated if the city was to increase in density, particularly along its major arterials as a
means of supporting mass transit.
Mr. Reed requested approval of the' proposal from the two commissions.
Mr. Duncan called for questions and comments from the commissioners.
Responding to a question from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Reed said he had examined what types of industrial uses
could be located on the property and the opportunities that existed, which were somewhat speculative.
The installation of infrastructure to serve a commercial development was costly and he would not
recommend that his client build a commercial building on speculation. Mr. Ward also wanted to realize
income through the life of the property and already managed another residential development to the north.
He noted that The Register-Guard owned about 80 to 90 acres of industrial property in a much more
development~ready state, and he did not think it prudent for the Wards to take that approach to the
property. "
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzie~icki asked if Mr. Reed had met with Ms. Van, who had offered testimony regarding the
application, "and if she was aware of the final plan. Mr. Reed said he had talked to Ms. Van several times
on the telephone but never met with her as she lived in Phoenix. She had been provided a copy of the
plan.
Ms. Nichols asked when the Chad Drive extension would be built. Mr. Reed said that road project was
originally scheduled to be under construction in 2007 and was now moved to 2008. The street was now
dead-ended but would be extended to become a major collector and a possible route for EmX.
Mr. Dignam noted the changes that would be made to the Metro Plan Diagram if the proposal were
adopted, and said the adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
He asked Mr. Reed to comment. Mr. Reed referred to his application, which included a fuller explanation.
He said that 30 years ago the proposal would have been called a "spot zone" and it would have been
considered a bad idea. That was no longer the case. Communities formerly designated large swathes"of
land for a single use, creating more need for residents to drive and increasing the need for additional road
capacity. It was now considered it acceptable to mix uses and the issue became a matter of compatibility
in terms of design. Mr. Reed pointed out that the planned unit development process would provide
another opportunity for the adjacent neighbors to provide input on the compatibility issue if the applica-
October 24, 2006
Pag~ 3
tion in question was approved. He reiterated that the proposal would put housing close to where people
worked and would be along a major transit line.
Mr~ Dignam asked if staff agreed with the applicant's reasoning. Ms. McKinney clarified that the change
the designation itself did not cause inconsistency; the issue was whether changing this part of the Metro
Plan would create a ripple effect in the Metro Plan itself that would create inconsistency, perhaps
confl~cting with other Metro Plan policies. Mr. Nystrom pointed out if the City enabled people to request
a change in designation, there would be some recognizable differences in designations. - He did not
perceive the issue as the change itself, but rather whether the change created other inconsistencies that
must be reconciled. He did not see any text inconsistencies.
Ms. Arkin asked if the developer anticipated that the development would place pressure on the adjacent
properties to become res.idential. Mr. Reed did not think so. He said that everything to the south and
southwest was owned by The Register Guard and he did not think the company had plans for residential
development. If The Register Guard proposed residential development, it would have to justify it in the
same manner as the applicant. There were two long tax lots to the east owned by Northwest Natural Gas
and the Eugene Water & Electric Board and he did not anticipate a change in their use. He said that a
sliver of land to the east would be created when the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
widened 1-5 and built the off-ramp to Beltline. The properties to the north would be "islanded," which
was why the company reached out to the Harmon family, the adjacent property owner. When those
discussions began, there was no ODOT road project affecting the two properties. The family had no idea
as to what it wanted to do with the property in the long-term, so the Ward family proceeded with its
application alone. He did not think the Harmon property would remain industrial because of its small, odd
size. In the long-term the property owner may seek a change to residential or commercial, which his client
would not object to~
Ms. Arkin asked who would pay for the Chad Drive extension. Mr. Reed said the City would build the
road but.he was not sure of all the funding mechanisms involved. He said that adjacent property owners
would be assessed for a-portion of the road, and the applicant would pay a considerable- sum in systems
development charges when the development occurred.
Referringto the traffic impact analysis (TIA), Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked how an industrial park could
generate more trips than a residential development. Mr. Reed attributed it to the wide range of uses
allowed in industrial zones by the City and the fact that traffic used commercial developments more
_ heavily during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. He said that the residential development would have more of a
balance of trips and it was likely that some residents could take advantage of mass transit or other
alternate modes to come and go from the site. Mr. Reed explained that the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Manual was used in the calculation and its figures were based on land usage and- square
feet.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki pointed out an error in Table 2 on page 10 of the TIA.
There being no other requests to speak, Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. He called for the staff
response to testimony.
Ms. McKinney said that there were standards related to the calculations used in the TIA, and the TIA was
referred to the City's Public Works Transportation staff, which confirmed the numbers were generally
representative of the most reasonable development scenario. Mr. Nystrom concurred. H.e noted t~at peak
flow hours were also measured by the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Siekiel-
October 24; 2006
Page 4
Zdzienicki, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that incidental trips were also accounted'for in the TIA and staff
concurred with the applicant there would be still be a reduction in trips from the development.
Mr. Hledik asked why the site was not included in the Metro Plan industrial lands inventory. Mr. Nystrom
speculated it had to do with the size and configuration of the parcel in question. He added that was not
unusual for many parts of the City's land inventories.
Mr. Hledik noted the criteria for amending a refinement plan, which included a.change in circumstances.
He said the findings demonstrating consistency with the Metro Plan as it relatedto Goal 10, Housing,
mentioned the fact the parcel was not included in the residential lands supply. He suggested the applicant
made a stronger argument in his application related to the change in circumstance, which had to do with
the residential densities expected but not realized in the Crescent Village development. He asked if staff
concurred. Mr. Nystrom said staff did not find that as compelling an argument. The development
occurring now at Crescent Village was being built within the established densities. Staff had first looked
at the refinement plan and determined the need for a plan amendment was related to the need for
consistency with the Metro Plan. That was the driving force behind the amendment. He perceived the
other issue to be incidental but not as compelling. Mr. Hledik asked if staff found them to be valid. Mr.
Nystrom said not to the same degree as the applicant. He did not think the cotnnlission,needed to rely on
that as a finding as.he considered the finding related to consistency. sufficient.
Mr. Carroll asked if the Campus Industrial designation allowed for'small-scale restaurants. Ms.
McKinney said yes, very in limited, circumstances; the restaurant must be associated with an industrial
use, andtheiise must be approved through a discretionary land use approval process. Mr. Carroll asked
what development standards distinguished Campus Industrial from other industrial zones., Ms. McKinney
indicated that higher standards for landscaping and additional compatibility standards distinguished the
zone from other industrial zones.
Mr. Carroll referred to the site plans submitted with the applicant and asked if staff had looked at the
location of the transit stop to see if it would work. Ms. McKinney said no, as the application was not a
development proposal.
Mr. Sullivan said the staff-prepared findings for Goal 9 indicated that the City of Eugene had enough
industrial, land but what he had read had indicated to him that was in question in regard to what land was
shovel-ready an4 what was not; more importantly, the industrial land 'inventory was yet to be presented to
the public. He was hesitant to conclude that there was plenty ()fshovel-ready industrial land in Eugene.
He believed that out.of 1,212 acres, or 484 acres was actually available. He asked staff to consider a
response at some point.
Mr. Sullivan suggested the Lane County Planning Commission'would also have to make a recommenda-
tion to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the refinement plan amendment because of the need
for a ,finding of consistency with State Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. He recalled that a letter of
opposition to the application related to police protection in the area and the high property crime rate in
Willakenzie. The County would have to provide police service to the area at a time wh~n it was strapped
for funds. He believed there would be a public safety issue until the property was annexed.
Mr. Sullivan referred to the letter provided to the commissions by Lane County staff Celia Barry, who did
not seem to concur with Eugene staff about the conditionQf the City road. He did not know if that any
impact on the proposal but needed clarification on that issue.
October 24, 2006
Page 5
In reference to Mr. Sullivan's concerns regarding Goal 11, Ms. McKinney clarified that no development
could occur until annexation.occurred. Mr. Nystrom.added that currently, the property was in the
jurisdiction of Lane County and the request would not change that.
Speaking to Mr. Sullivan's concerns regarding the condition of the roads, Ms. M~Kinney concurred that
the current condition of the roads was not suitable for development. When the applicant made his future
development application, another TIA would be required and the developer would also be required to pay
for needed improvements identified in the TIA. She did not believe that the redesignation would trigger a .
County road problem. Mr. Nystrom added that the redesignation would actually alleviate a County road
problem because it was likely any annexation proposal would include the street.
Mr. Dignam had a strong personal concern about the adequacy of the supply of industrial land but he
acknowledged that the parcel in question might be too small for industrial use.. He asked if the issue of the
sufficiency of industrial land should be an issue for him to consider when.deciding how to vote. Mr.
Nystrom pointed out that in regard to the supply of industrial lands, the redesignation would not be an
issue because the parcel was not counted toward the existing supply of industrial land. For that reason,
staff concluded the application technically met the State planning goal. If the pommissions were not
comfortable with the further loss of industrial lands, they could consider the policies in the Metro Plan
related to economic development and industrial lands and reach a different conclusion than staff.. He
suggested that the commissions needed to make a distinction between the policy and the data issues.
Mr. Duncan suggested that the commissions could weigh the gain of residential land against the loss of
industrial land and make a conclusion on that basis, recognizing there were shortages in all land supply
categories.
Mr. Duncan noted that a study of the local industrial land supply done by EcoNorthwest had been
published that day and accepted by Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County. He asked if that was
something the commissions could consider in regard.to the application. Mr. Nystrom said the decision
must be based on the adopted Industrial Lands Study.
"Mr. Hledik asked if the Chad Drive extension route was firm. Ms. Gardner said that the 30 percent design
before the commissions reflected the design that was being advanced by the City. It would not change
significantly. Mr. Hledik said he had initially been concerned by the insertion of residential between
industrial uses, but suggested that the fact of the connection created a logical break between uses.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki suggested delaying a decision awaiting the EcoNorthwest analysis. Mr. Nystrom
said the study would not replace the adopted inventory in the short-term.
Mr. Lawless said since the site was not inqluded in either the residential or industrial lands inventories, he
saw no problem with the application in that regard. Mr. Nystrom agreed there was not an inventory
impact. By way of history, he recalled that when the Willakenzie Area Plan was developed, there were
residences on the industrially designated lands that raised a question about the future of those sites;
because of the fact of the residences, there was hesitancy to assume those lands would be in industrial use
in the future.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki referred to a statement on page 44 of the application that the owner requested off-
site infrastructure costs be credited toward the City's systems development charge and asked if that was
standard practice. Ms. McKinney did not know, adding that the statement did not actually related to the
resdesignation request but to the development proposal.
October 24, 2006
Page 6
Respanding to. a questian fram Mr.. Dignam, Mr. Nystram said that an actian amending the Metra Plan
wauld also. autamatically amend the applicable refinement plan given that there were no. text changes
being made to. the Metra Plan. Far that reasan, he can~luded that the Lane Caunty Planning Cammissian
did nat have to. act an the applicatian amending the refinement plan.
Respanding to a questian fram Mr. Sullivan regarding the impact afthe applicatian an the Metrapalitan
Wastewater Management Cammissian (MWMC), Ms. McKinney indicated that pravisian af such service
was a functian af annexatian to. the City, and that .currently, City wastewater services were available to.
serve the praperty. The redesignatian wauld have no. negative impact an the future afthe MWMC.
Respanding to. a questian fram Mr. Carrall regarding whether staff believed the.applicatian bath
addressed a new ar amended cammunity palicy as well as a change in circumstances, Mr. Nystram said
that what canstituted a change in circumstances was samewhat fuzzy. One cauld argue that a change in
the Metra Plan Diagram canstituted a change in circumstances. Staff had relied an the hierarchy questian
rather than the applicant's arguments related to. surraunding issues having a direct impact an the change in
circumstances. He said that the new ar amended cammunity palicy wauld reflect the change in the Metra
Plan Diagram. He.did ~at think the cammissian needed to. go. beyand that in its findings.
Mr. Carrall asked if the new view afzane changes discussed by the applicant satisfied the requirement
related to. a change in circumstances. Mr. Nystram said that staff cauld nat rely an that, as the facus was
an the map designatian change rather than what wauld be built later. Mr. Carrall asked haw staff
cancluded"that theapplicatian satisfied the criterian telatedta a change in circumstances. Ms. McKinney
said an amendment to. the Metra Plan was fallawed by a change to. the refinement plan; the change to. the
Metra Plan represented the change in circumstances ar the change in 'cammunity palicy. Staff was nat
relying an the future develapment but the fact afthe appraval itself to. change the Metra Plan. Mr.
Nystram added that one cauld apply criterian (c), New ar amended cammunity palicies, ar criterian (e), A
change af circumstances in a substantial matter that was nat anticipated at the time the refinement plan
was adapted. He said that if the cammissians were uncamfartable with the findings as drafted, staff cauld
amend them to. facus an ane ar the ather criterian.
Mr. Hledik said that he thaught s~affhad relied on the applicant's citatian an page 20 afthe applicatian
regarding new cammunity palicies that had created a change in circumstance, such as nodal development
palicies. Ms. McKinney reiterated that staff was nat loaking at the mixed-use develapment prapasal
anticipated and did nat feel camfartable it cauld make that argument for the cantemplated plan amend-
ment since the applicatian in frant af the cammissians was a redesignatian, not a development applicatian.
Mr. Carrall said that staffs reasaning seemed circular to. him; in ather cases were a zane change was
requested, the cammissian must laak at refinement plan palicies to. determine the validity af the request.
Criterian 2 suggested to. him that the text af the refinement plan must be cansidered when the cammissian
evaluated a zane change. He agreed with Mr. Hledik that was the applicant's appraach. Changing the
Metra Plan Diagram the cammissians wauld have changed the circumstance to. justify the refinement plan
ch':lnge. Mr. Nystram painted aut that no. zane change was being cantemplated in this instance; anly a
designatian change was being cansidered, which made it difficult far staff to. rely an same af the
arguments that the applicants had affered in regard to. the future develapment. While thase palicies were
in place, they did nat mandate that the site in questian wauld develap into. a mixed use development.
There were several steps that remained befare the development stage was reached. Mr. Nystram said if
ane was to. change the Metra Plan Diagram, ane cauld nat create an incansistency ~ith the refinement
Octaber 24, 2006
Page 7
plan; otherwise, the change to the Metro Plan would create a conflict with the refinement plan. That
potential conflict was the reason behind the provision for an automatic refinement plan amendment.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki asked where criterion (b), New inventory material which relates to a statewide
goal, was addressed in the application. Mr. Nystrom reiterated that the City did not have a new formal
inventory that could be used in the decision making process.
Responding to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe concurred with the remarks of Mr.
Nystrom in regard to the refinement plan amendment.
Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Nystrom that in the case of an inconsistency between the Metro Plan and
the refinement plan, the Metro Plan prevailed.
Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Dignam, moved to recommend the Board of County Com-
missioners approval of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan amend-
ment as requested and refined in the Huntington Crossing application based on 1) the
amendment is consistent with relevant statewide planning goals, and 2) adoption is not in-
consistent with the Metro Plan as defined in Eugene Code Section 9.7730. The motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council
the approval of the application to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General
Area Plan and Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
October 24, 2006
Page 8
ATTACHMENT C
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
October 24, 2006
TO:
Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission
FROM:
Lydia McKinney, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing for Huntington Crossing Metro Plan Amendment and Refinement
Plan Amendment (MA 06-3, RA 06-2)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment and refinement
plan amendment.
BRIEFING STATEMENT:
On October 24, 2006, the Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Metro Plan and to amend the
applicable refinement plan, the Willakenzie Area Plan, for Huntington Crossing. The property is owned
by Pop Corn LLC. The property subject to this request, identified as Tax Lots 500, 600, and 700 of
Assessor’s Map 17-03-16-41, is located east of Old Coburg Road at 89295, 89297 and 89317 Old Coburg
Road and is outside Eugene city limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The applicant requests
approval of the following:
Metro Plan Amendment (MA 06-3) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram from a designation of
Campus Industrial to a designation of Medium Density Residential for the subject property.
Refinement Plan Amendment (RA 06-2) to amend the Willakenzie Area Plan land use diagram from a
designation of Special Light Industrial (labeled as Campus Industrial in the Coburg/Crescent Subarea) to
a designation of Medium Density Residential for the subject property.
BACKGROUND:
Purpose of Staff Report
The Eugene Code requires City staff to prepare a written report, prior to the public hearing, for the
Planning Commissions’ consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment and refinement plan
amendment request. The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations (see
Attachment A). The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions will also consider public testimony
and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision. Following the close of the
public hearing record, the Planning Commissions will make a recommendation, based on the required
approval criteria, to the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to approve,
approve with modifications or deny the applications. The requests will be heard before the Eugene City
Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners in a separate public hearing, following Planning
Commission action. The quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described in the
Eugene Code (EC) at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
On May 19, 2006, the applicant submitted an application to the City of Eugene for an amendment to the
Metro Plan and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Following the receipt of the City’s completeness
review comments, the applicant provided supplemental application materials on August 24, 2006,
including a request for a refinement plan amendment. The applicant requested the application be deemed
complete on August 24, 2006, the date the supplemental materials were submitted. A public hearing
before the Planning Commissions is scheduled for October 24, 2006. Referrals were provided to the
appropriate agencies, and notice of the October 24, 2006 public hearing was mailed and posted consistent
with Eugene Code requirements.
The Planning Division has received no letters of public testimony. Any additional written comments
received after the preparation of this 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 and the Lane County Planning Commission shall address the relevant
approval criteria from EC 9.7730(3) and EC 9.8424 in making recommendations to the Eugene City
Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on the proposals, as listed below. Preliminary
findings addressing the required approval criteria have been prepared by staff and are attached.
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 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria.
The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the
criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall
decide whether to act on the application. If the city council decides to act, it shall approve, approve
with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with
modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
(1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(a)Statewide planning goals.
(b)Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.
(c)Remaining portions of the refinement plan.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a)An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b)New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c)New or amended community policies.
(d)New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation,
statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
(e)A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time
the refinement plan was adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the
attached preliminary findings, staff recommend approval of the applicant’s proposed Metro Plan
amendment and refinement plan amendment.
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 Preliminary 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 for
review.
Attachment A. Preliminary Staff Findings
The following additional items are included in the file record for this application, and are available
for review at the Planning Division (The Planning Commission will be provided a copy of these
materials with the agenda packet):
Applicant’s Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendment application materials
Transportation Impact Analysis
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
th
Please contact Lydia McKinney, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5485 or via email at
lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us.
ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary Staff Findings
Huntington Crossing
(MA 06-3, RA 06-2)
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (MA 06-3)
The proposed amendment would change the current Metro Plan land use designation of Campus
Industrial to Medium Density residential. While there is no corresponding development proposal
under review, the applicant indicates that the intent is to develop a mixed use development to
include residential units and approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space. A mixed use
proposal would require approval through the planned unit development process within a medium
residential zone. As no formal development proposal is under review, staff’s analysis and findings
are based solely on the request to re-designate the property as Medium Density Residential.
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) 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
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.
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 set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reviewing these amendments 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
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of
the amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission/Lane County Planning
Commission public hearing on October 24, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the City mailed notice
of the proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as
required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. On August 30, 2006, referrals
concerning the pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), City of Springfield, and Lane County. The Cal Young Neighborhood Association and
City departments were also mailed a copy of the application on September 22, 2006 consistent with
the Eugene Code. On September 22, 2006 notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
On October 4, 2006, notice of the joint Planning Commissions public hearing was published in the
Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On September 22, 2006, notice was also
posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5). An additional public hearing before the Eugene City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners will be scheduled following Planning
Commission action. Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for that hearing.
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 1
The process for adopting these amendments complies 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 these 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 these amendments. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments 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 the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do 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 these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and,
therefore, 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 amendments do 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.
The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the
PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5
resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 2
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UGB area.
The subject property does not include a Goal 5 resource site. The proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do 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 do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 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. The record shows that the City can reasonably expect that future development of the site
will comply with environmental laws. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject 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 not located within known areas of natural disasters or
hazards. The subject property is outside the 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, these amendments are 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 of private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore the proposed amendments
will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing
or future public recreational facilities. As such, the amendments are 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.
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 3
Goal 9 requires that the city ‘[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes,
types, location, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with
plan policies[.]” OAR 660 Division 9 is LCDC’s Goal 9 administrative rule. Among other things,
the rule requires that cities complete an “Economic Opportunities Analysis.” OAR 660-009-0015.
Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and Commercial
Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that cities
designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR 660-
009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply “at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3)).” In addition, OAR 660-
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations of lands in excess of two acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) Demonstrate that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660-Division 9; or (b) Amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent
with the requirements of Division 9.
The applicant proposed a change in plan designation of land in excess of two acres from the
Campus-Industrial plan designation. The amendments will decrease the supply of available
industrial land by approximately 6.89 acres for the purpose of facilitating a transit-oriented
medium-density residential development. The proposed change is consistent with the parts of the
Metro Plan that address the requirements of OAR 660 Division 9 (option (a), above). The City’s
Industrial Lands Inventory is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its
Administrative Rule. Currently, the City of Eugene has a surplus of industrial land. Additionally, as
shown in the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report (1993) and the Metropolitan Industrial
Lands Policy Report, the subject property was not included in the inventory of the Metropolitan
Plan Industrial Lands Study (See Industrial Lands Special Study Map, Sites in Subregion #5), so the
re-designation from Campus Industrial of this specific parcel of will not affect the formally
acknowledged inventory of industrial land. The proposed amendments are 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 request to re-designate 6.89 acres from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential increases the supply and availability of residential lands. The property
affected by the proposed amendments was not included in supply of land available for residential
development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study, so the re-
designation will result in an increase in buildable residential lands. Therefore, the amendments are
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 is located outside the city limits but inside Eugene’s Urban
Growth Boundary. The existing level of public facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs
of existing and future development, as public facilities are available or can be extended to the
subject property. Public Works staff have indicated that a change in designation from Campus
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 4
Industrial to Medium Density Residential will reduce the demand on public facilities and services
and on the capacity needed to serve the subject properties. In addition, while the parcel is currently
outside City limits, annexation is a requirement of any proposed development. City of Eugene
Public Works staff have provided referral comments that indicate public facilities and services are
available for the purpose of annexation. The provision of these amendments does not affect the
planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore, the 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), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR states that when land use changes, including amendments
to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service and/or
volume to capacity ratio) of the facility.
Under the TPR, an amendment to a comprehensive plan significantly affects an existing or planned
transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(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 and considering both existing transportation facilities and planned
transportation facilities as required by the TPR:
A.Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility;
B.Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan; or
C.Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
The proposed diagram amendment does not change the functional classification or a transportation
facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system. Therefore, it is
does not have a significant effect under (a) or (b). Further, it does not have a significant effect
under (c).
To address the TPR, the applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The City of
Eugene and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) collaborated on a scope of work for
the TIA for the proposed plan amendment. Roadways near the development site include Old
Coburg Road, classified as a major collector, North Game Farm Road, classified as a minor arterial,
Chad Drive, classified as a Major Collector, and Crescent Drive, classified as a minor arterial.
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 5
These classifications address the planned transportation needs of the surrounding area. The
proposed re-designation is not inconsistent with the functional classification of the existing and
planned transportation facilities.
The TIA evaluates the current performance of existing facilities and the performance of these
facilities as a result of the amendments to re-designate 6.89 acres from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential. The TIA provides that the existing designation projects that 256 trips
during the afternoon peak hour and 2,389 trips during average daily weekday traffic will be
generated by the development site, based on a most reasonable development scenario. Staff have
reviewed the analysis and findings in the TIA and concur with the applicant’s conclusions regarding
a most reasonable development scenario. “Trip” is defined as a single directional vehicle trip that
has one origin and one destination. “Peak hour” is defined as the four highest contiguous 15-minute
traffic volume periods.
The TIA further provides that under the proposed land use designation change, and subsequent zone
change to R-2 Medium Density Residential, 93 trips during the afternoon peak hour and 974 trips
during average daily weekday traffic will be generated by the development. The applicant has
provided these findings based on the maximum number of units of 20 units per gross acre, as
provided in the Metro Plan. The TIA also provides findings based on the “master site plan”, which
is not part of this application, but the applicant indicates this proposal will follow upon successful
re-designation of the property. Under the proposed master plan, it is projected that 117 trips during
the afternoon peak hour and 1,086 trips during the average daily weekday traffic will be generated
by the development. These figures indicate that the re-designation of the subject property from
Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential will result in a reduction in the traffic generated
by the subject property. City of Eugene and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have
concurred that the proposed re-designation will not significantly affect the existing or planned
transportation facility. As such, the amendments are consistent with Statewide planning Goal 12.
Old Coburg Road, adjacent to the western boundary of the development site, is currently under
Lane County jurisdiction. Referral comments from Lane County Public Works staff indicate that
Old Coburg Road is rural in nature and not currently suited for urban development, and that the
Transportation Impact Analysis does not address Lane County Chapter 15 requirements. The
improvement of Old Coburg is currently a capital improvement project (CIP) called the Chad Drive
extension project. This project is slated for construction in the spring/summer of 2008. In the event
that the applicant chooses to proceed with development prior to the CIP, the development proposal
would trigger City code requirements to review Old Coburg Road for capacity. As also noted by
Lane County staff, in the event that Old Coburg Road remains in Lane County jurisdiction at the
time a development proposal is submitted for the subject property, Lane County staff would have
another opportunity to review a TIA.
This amendment will actually reduce existing potential impacts to the existing and planned
transportation facilities. Therefore the proposed change will not result in a significant affect. The
proposed amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Goal 13 requires that land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
manage all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles. Changing the designation from
Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential does not specifically impact energy conservation
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 6
or preclude sound energy conservation measures. The proposed amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The amendments do not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property is
already within the Urban Growth Boundary. 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.
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 amendments will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 6.89 acres of land from Campus Industrial to
Medium Density Residential 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.
The applicant provided findings regarding how the Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent
with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. Those policies found to be applicable to this
request are addressed below. Although the applicant addressed additional Metro Plan policies, they
do not provide further, relevant guidance or mandatory approval criteria with respect to the
proposal. However, to the extent that they may be applicable, the applicant’s findings are
incorporated herein by reference as further evidence that the amendment does not make the Metro
Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram included in the applicant’s written materials is outdated, and not
applicable. The Metro Plan diagram in the applicant’s written materials shows the northern portion
of the subject property as designated for Low Density Residential use. However, the applicable
Metro Plan diagram (Ordinance No. 20319) does show the entire subject property designated as
Campus Industrial. The portions of the applicant’s written statement addressing the Low Density
Residential designation, and the Metro Plan diagram in the applicant’s materials, are not
incorporated into these findings
The following polices are applicable to this request:
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 7
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.11)
Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and
location. (Policy A.17)
As noted by the applicant, the area proposed for designation as medium density residential is
adjacent to the Chad Drive employment area to the southwest, and within .9 miles of the Springfield
RiverBend medical employment area and the Gateway commercial center, which are in proximity
to major transportation systems, including the existing street system and LTD services. Re-
designation of the subject property to medium density residential provides additional opportunities
for additional housing types, density, size, cost and location. The applicant’s proposal is not
inconsistent with the applicable policies.
Economic Element
Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. (Policy
B.5)
Increase 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 policies above are brought into question with the request to remove the Campus Industrial
Designation. According to the applicant’s written materials, adjacent property owners with
industrial uses were consulted regarding the availability of this parcel for purchase, and there was
no desire of the surrounding property owners to acquire the property. In addition, there is currently
vacant industrial land in the area, so the re-designation would not preclude existing industrial
activities from expansion. The applicant also consulted a number of real estate agents and Metro
Partnership staff who indicated that the size and orientation of the site posed significant limitations
for industrial development. The suitability of the subject property for industrial activities and the
consolidation potential is limited based on the relatively narrow, long lot configuration and the 6.89
acres size of the parcel. The areas for campus industrial uses were typically envisioned as large
campus style developments. The Land Use Designations section of the Metro Plan describes a 50-
acre minimum lot size for parcels over 50 acres, to protect undeveloped sites from piecemeal
development until a site development plan can be approved by the responsible city. As suitability
of this parcel for location or expansion of industrial uses is constrained, the proposed amendments
are not inconsistent with the applicable Economic Element policies.
Transportation Element Policy
Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation system.
(Finance Policy F.36)
This finance policy provides direction to the City of Eugene to expand system development charge
(SDC) methodologies to address the impact of new development on state, county and transit
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 8
facilities. Currently, SDC methodologies charge new development only for the City’s portion of the
arterial-collector system. The intent of this policy, as described in Transplan, is for the City to
consider additional system development charges to mitigate onsite or adjacent impacts. To the
extent that this policy is applicable to the proposal, development resulting from the proposed
amendment would be subject to SDCs.
Refinement Plan Amendments
Eugene Code Section 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in
bold and italic
) be applied to a Refinement Plan amendment.
(1)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a), above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(1)(b) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan.
Applicable provision of the Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above with respect to
the proposed refinement plan amendments and Metro Plan amendment. The proposed refinement
plan amendments are consistent with the applicable policies contained in the Residential Land Use
and Housing Element, with the Economic Element and with the Transportation Element of the
Metro Plan.
(1)(c) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of the
refinement plan.
The Willakenzie Area Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 6.89 acres of land from Special
Light Industrial (shown as Campus Industrial on the Coburg-Crescent Subarea map) to Medium
Density Residential is consistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan.
The applicant provided detailed findings regarding how the Willakenzie Area Plan text and diagram
amendments are consistent with the policy direction contained in the Willakenzie Area Plan. Those
policies found to be applicable to this request are addressed below. Although the applicant
addressed additional Willakenzie Area Plan policies and text than those listed below, they are not
directly relevant to the amendments or do not constitute mandatory approval criteria with respect to
the proposal. However, to the extent that they may be applicable, the applicant’s findings are
incorporated herein by reference as further findings that the amendments are consistent with the
remaining portions of the Willakenzie Area Plan.
Coburg/Crescent Subarea Policies and Proposed Actions
The City shall allow for a gradual transition from existing residential to future industrial
use for those areas along Old Coburg Road that are currently zoned residential but are
industrially designated. (Policy 4)
These proposed amendments are not inconsistent with this policy. Policy 4 allows for a gradual
transition from residential to industrial uses. Designation of the subject property for medium
density residential would make the policy inapplicable in the event re-designation is approved, as it
will not be industrially designated.
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 9
Compatibility between residential and industrial uses is addressed in two other policies that will be
applicable at the time of zone change. These are:
The City of Eugene shall ensure that industrial development in the Coburg/Crescent
Subarea is sensitive to and compatibility with surrounding uses and will confirm to the
Coburg/Crescent Special Light Industrial Siting and Development Standards. (Policy 3)
Apply the /SR Site Review suffix to all parcels designated for Special Light Industrial
and Light-Medium Development in the Coburg/Crescent Subarea. (Proposed Action
3.1)
The City of Eugene shall require that planned unit development procedures be required for
all residential developments within the Coburg/Crescent subarea. The intent of this
requirement is to ensure adequate review of the following factors:
A.Development of a comprehensive street network;
B.provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential, commercial,
industrial, educational, and recreational areas;
C.encouragement of a variety of dwelling types, heights, and setbacks;
D.provision of adequate and attractive buffering between residential, commercial,
and industrial developments; and
E.provision of pedestrian linkages to transit stops where practical. (Policy 5)
These policies assure that the issue of compatibility and interface of residential and industrial lands
will be addressed both from the perspective of new or expanded industrial development through
Site Review provisions, and also from the perspective or residential development, which will
require review and approval through the planned unit development process.
The proposed amendments do not pose a conflict with the applicable Coburg/Crescent Subarea
policies.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the
time the refinement plan was adopted.
The proposed amendments are not based on an error in the publication of the Willakenzie Area
Plan, new inventory material relating to a statewide planning goal or new or amended state or
federal laws, regulations, or policies; therefore EC 9.8424(2)(a), (b) and (d)above, are not
applicable to this request.
The proposed re-designation in the Metro Plan from Campus Industrial to Medium Density
Residential, addresses a new or amended community policy or a change in circumstances in a
substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the Willakenzie Area Plan was adopted,
consistent with EC 9.8424(c) and (e) above. As noted by the applicant, the current patterns for
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 10
campus industrial development are not what were anticipated at the time the refinement plan was
adopted, which predicted significant industrial development within this area. While there have been
several industrial users who have developed within the Coburg/Crescent Subarea, several acres
remain vacant and unable to accommodate requests for commercial or heavy industrial uses.
The proposed plan amendments are consistent with the related Metro Plan amendment to re-
designate the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium Density Residential.
Preliminary Findings – October 16, 2006
Page 11
Huntingt9n Crossing
MCKINNEY Lydia S
ATTACHMENT E
From: Judith Van [jvari@asu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23,,2006 3:16 PM
To,: MCKINNEY Lydia S
Subject: Huntington Crossing'
Judith Van
89326 Old Coburg Road
Eugene, OR 97408
To Lydia McKinney and the City of Eugene
Re: Huntington Crossing (MA 06-3, RA 06-2)
I have been a resident of Old Coburg Road (OCR) since 1951. The house J now own has been standing at
. the north end of OCR (directly across from the proposed Huntington Crossing) since 1937. I am opposed to
the development of Huntington Crossing as it is now outlined because
· The City of Eugene is considering overturning a stated plan for the OCR area that since the
80's has privileged the removal of existing residences and placed prohibitions on building new
residences in favor, of developing the area as light industrial. This plan combined' with the proposed
development of Chad Drive (a truck route) which was to travel east across this land, caused my family and
others to sell their property and move. The plan was for NO residential development on OCR. Again, most
residents believing that their area would never again be residential because of this plan sold their property
and moved. The residents had been involved and didn't want to move but because of the larger property
sizes there were fewer voices and those few voices had been largely ignored for the twenty years of.
planning meetings when the City was deciding what to do with the land. The residents maintained that the
area should always remain the same low density residential/small farml mixed use it had been. When
the zoning changed to light industrial, residents suggested that at least some of the neighborhood's integrity
be maintained. The city didn't listen to us for all those years, why now, is the city, on the request of one
landowner, considering spending even more money, redesigning the area once agaif1, and changing the'
plan back to residential but this time high-medium density with commercial? Shouldn't property owners have
the security 'of knowing that they can count on the city to follow its own stated plans and not overturn them at
the request of one landowner/developer?
. .
· The plan is irresponsible because of the current road/traffic problems in the area. Not only
does this zone change go against a twenty year city plan, but the present and projected road system
cannot support this over~development of the area. Traffic is already dangerous on Game Farm Road.
The road is traveled too fast by too many cars and big work and gravel trucks, and speed limits are not
enforced. I know this as I am the one pulling out of OCR and onto Game Farm each time I leave my house.
Sometimes it takes me twenty minutes to drive the four or five miles to Beltline, and forget going around to
Coburg Road, it's even worse. In short the traffic in the area, as anyone knows who has to drive there, is a
mess and the new interchange at 1-5 and Beltline is not going to help. In future, traffic volume will simply
increase onto the smaller roads leading to this exchange and increase congestion. I propose that you
reconsider the traffic plan before you consider consider a zone change whereby cK:Jding even more traffic.
On a personal note, the additional traffic onto OCR from a large apartment complex will make
using my driveways dangerous. The proposed development will have two large streets with
1 0/24/2006
Huntington Crossing
a'ccess onto OCR
directly across from Relyea's cottage. With my house on the west side of the road, conflicting. .
traffic patterns will make it hazardousto pull onto OCR and turn to the left (north) from any of my
three driveways, and will also adversely affect the other residents tc the north. .
· There is an abundance of medium density housing in the immediate area~ There is
medium/high density on Gateway, and off Crescent (sQuthside) and more projected on Crescent
(northside). Would you have Game Farm Road and OCR resemble Gateway just south? Medium density
wilt also invite the same problems of traffic congestion, overcrowding, and crime, plus increase the already
problematic transient movement through the area. On a personal note, since the development of the
Gateway apartments and the increasing number of young, poor and underemployed inhabitants of the area,
property crimes in th'e area hav~ increased. I speak from experience as m}i house and property have been
vandalized and broken into on average three times a year since I've owned it. As for police protection,
R'elyea's Cottage is in the county so there has been one overworked deputy to call.
· Finally, by changing the zoning on Ward's property, across OCR from Relyea's Cottage, my
property is ,slanded and reduced in value. Historically these two properties were part of the same large
orchard and farm. Now my property, Relyea's Cottage.the most historic house on the road, is in keeping with
the neighborhood, comfortable single family dwellings. By chang.ing the plan, my half acre is out of sync
with t~e .area directly east of me. This leaves my property in a liminal state', like a border state. Tothe north
and west of me are single family dwellings, to the east, if this ill conceived plan succeeds, there yvillbe
medium density apartments and commercial, andto the south light industrial.
Additionally, ando~ another purely aesthetic note having to do with. the integrity of Relyea's
Cottage: tflreestory apartments would eliminate the view 'of the Coburg H.ills from my house.
For these reasons, and because I have been an involved resident of the area for almost fi.fty years, I.suggest
'that this is not the bestuse of the property. Eugene can do better by this area. I am in support of in-depth
study including a firm plan for the entire area including traffic, population analysis, land use, and
~ompatibilityllivability before making ANY changes.
Thank You for your time,
Judith C. Van
Relyea's Cottage
39326 OldCoburg Road
Eugene, OR 97408
Judith Van, MFA
nstructor Dept. of English
~rizona State University
fempe! AZ
)ttp..;,.l{'!1_w't"-,J2!to119~,..~~.!d..~..~gJ!/~1y.~D_~~_Y_
IL&t there be songs to fill the air"
10/2'4/2006
Huntington Crossing
Hunter and Garcia
'''Ring the bells th.at still can ring,
forget your perfect offering
there is a crack in ~verything,
that is how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen
10/24/2006