HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5: Ordinance Amending Metro Plan and Refinement Plan - Huntington Crossing
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: 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: March 12, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lydia McKinney
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5485
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council is scheduled to take action on the request for a Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) amendment and Automatic Refinement Plan update for Huntington Crossing.
BACKGROUND
The City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a joint public hearing on this item on
February 22, 2007. Public testimony was received from two individuals in opposition to the proposal, as
well as testimony from the applicant. The City Council and Board of Commissioners closed the public
hearing with questions remaining for staff to answer. City Council questions for staff are addressed in a
memorandum provided as Attachment A. The City Council and Board of Commissioners decided to
deliberate on this proposal separately. The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to take action on
March 21, 2007. Additional information on the proposed request can be reviewed in the council packet
provided for the February 22, 2007, public hearing.
Eugene Code requires that within 30 days after the joint hearing, both governing bodies shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposed Metro Plan amendment. The current scheduled action dates
will fall within the 30 day requirement.
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. Attachment B, 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)
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S0703125.doc
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
The City Council may consider the following options:
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.
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 is
approved, automatically amending the Willakenzie Area Plan refinement plan.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and automatic refinement plan update
consistent with the applicable approval criteria at EC 9.7740.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Memorandum to City Council dated March 5, 2007, with staff responses to City Council questions
B.Staff findings (revised January 16, 2007)
C.Ordinance
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lydia McKinney, Associate Planner
Telephone: 682-5485
Staff E-Mail: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S0703125.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
M
th
99 West 10 Avenue
EMORANDUM
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
March 5, 2007
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Lydia McKinney, 682-5485
Subject:
Staff Responses to City Council and Land County Board of Questions Regarding Huntington
Crossing Metro Plan Amendment
This memo provides staff response to the questions raised by City Council on February 22 2007, regarding
the Huntington Crossing request for a Metro Plan amendment. Staff notes that there was information in the
record to respond to questions 2-8, but no information was in the record to respond to question 1.
Chase Node:
1. Council asked whether the development at the Chase Node went through a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process.
Staff response: There is no information regarding the Chase Node in the record. Therefore, a response
to this question would be considered new evidence, which is not permitted in the quasi-judicial
proceedings for a Metro Plan amendment.
Requiring a Master Plan as part of a Metro Plan amendment:
2. Council asked whether there is a
way to require a Master Plan for the subject property as part of the Metro Plan amendment.
Staff response: There is not a mechanism to require a “Master Plan” for the subject property unless
council makes a finding that an applicable approval criterion can only be met by imposition of such a
condition. The Planning Commission did not make such a finding. Council should note however, that
the existing refinement plan already requires a similar tool. Policy (5) within the Willakenzie Area
Plan for he Coburg/Crescent Subarea states:
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.
If approved, the applicant’s request to change the Metro Plan designation to Medium Density
Residential would require a zone change to the appropriate R-2 Medium Density Residential zone prior
to site development of a multi-family housing project. After this zoning is in place, the policy language
above will require that the applicant get approval for any residential development through the planned
unit development process. This process does serve as one form of master planning.
What proposal was submitted to the neighbors:
3. Council asked what development proposal the
applicant took to the neighborhood in response to a statement by the applicant at the hearing wherein
the applicant indicated that they had asked for comments from the neighborhood on the proposed plan
amendment.
Staff response: There is no written record in the file regarding the development proposal the applicant
took to the neighborhood. Staff understands from the applicant that the development proposal included
in the applicant’s Metro Plan amendment request is the same as what was shown to the neighbors. That
proposal (dated August 15, 2006) includes approximately 137 units of medium density housing.
Extent of commercial development allowed:
4. Council asked what amount of commercial
development could be allowed with a medium density residential zone.
Staff response: Under the current zoning of R-1 Low Density Residential, no commercial development
would be allowed. Assuming the property is re-designated to medium density residential and the
applicant obtains a zone change to R-2, commercial development would only be permitted on the
subject property through the PUD process. Approval of commercial use requires demonstration that the
commercial uses will serve the residents living in the PUD. As noted below, the maximum density
possible under the R-2 Medium Density Residential zone is 28 dwelling units per acre or 196 dwelling
units for this site. However, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the proposed commercial
uses will serve the actual number of units proposed. Given that 196 units is the maximum number of
units possible, staff would envision that the amount of commercial uses permitted would be limited in
scope.
Reconciliation of Medium Density versus High Density:
5. Council asked about presumed
inconsistencies between the applicant’s proposal for a medium density residential designation and the
references in the applicant’s materials to plan policy statements that refer to high density residential,
asking if this would make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Staff response:Staff does not believe that approval of the request for a medium density residential
designation would create an internal inconsistency within the Metro Plan. Staff does note that the
applicant was originally considering a request for high density residential rather than medium density
residential, and that the applicant’s materials may have incorrectly retained references to high-density
residential zoning. With regards to supporting policies such as the Metro Plan Residential Land Use
and housing Element policy A.11 which states “Generally locate higher density residential development
near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within
transportation-efficient nodes.”, staff believes that the term “higher density” is a relative term, and
would include medium as well as high density residential zones. As such, approval of the applicant’s
request will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Projected density on the subject property:
6. Council asked what the projected density is for the
subject property.
Staff response: Currently the property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and this zoning permits
one dwelling unit per lot. Assuming the Metro Plan designation is approved and the applicant obtains a
zone change to R-2, this zoning would allow residential development at densities from 10 to 28
dwelling units per acre. The subject property is approximately 6.89 acres in area, which would allow
68 to 193 dwelling units. Requirements for parking, landscaping, and multi-family development
standards would be applicable to the development proposal.
Provide a limitation for the subject property to allow medium density residential use only:
7.
Council asked whether there is a way to assure that only medium density residential use would be
allowed, presumably to prohibit the ability to do commercial uses in a future development proposal.
Staff response: The current proposal is for a Metro Plan diagram amendment, with consistent changes
to refinement plan maps. In rare circumstances, applicants have limited such requests to allow for only
specific uses, and provided findings that only support those limited uses. In a few of those cases, the
City has considered the imposition of property-specific limitations on allowed uses. In this case, the
Planning Commission found that the applicant’s analysis is sufficient to support the proposed re-
designation and map changes without use restrictions. In cases where a use restriction is warranted,
staff recommends that the use limitation be adopted as a text amendment to the applicable refinement
plan to best ensure future notice and enforcement of such a limitation. Staff has some concern that a
use limitation for the subject property that would prohibit a retail/commercial use in conjunction with a
residential PUD may be inconsistent with other policies in the Coburg/Crescent Subarea of the
Willakenzie Area Plan. Such existing policies encourage mixed use developments, including some
commercial use within a residential PUD. If the council wishes to pursue a text amendment to the
refinement plan, additional staff time will be needed to develop a proposal.
Why should this request be considered when people didn’t have an opportunity before to change
8.
the designation:
The Board of Commissioners asked why they should be compelled to approve this
Metro Plan amendment request when changing the designation wasn’t available to residents before.
Staff Response: This Metro Plan amendment is being requested by a private property owner as a
citizen initiated request. Staff notes that the code does provide for any citizen to initiate a Metro Plan
amendment request at any time as per EC 9.9.7715(2)(b).
Additional Information
For additional information, please contact Lydia McKinney Associate Planner, at 682-5485 or via email at
lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us.
ATTACHMENT B
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;
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 2
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
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
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 4
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
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
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 5
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.
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.
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 6
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
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
Staff Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 7
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:
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.
Preliminary Findings – January 16, 2007
Page 8
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
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 C
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\M070312\S0703125-attC.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\M070312\S0703125-attC.doc