HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20305
ORDINANCE NO. :20305
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WILLAKENZ!E AREA PLAN
TEXT; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.2160 AND 9.9700 OF THE
EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADOPTING A SEVEP~BILITY CLAUSE;
AND PROV~DiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Counci~ of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On September 8, 2003, the Eugene City Council initiated the process for
considering this Ordinance's amendments to Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to allow
concurrent processing of the Code amendments with privately-initiated amendments to the
Willakenzie Area Plan.
B, The amendments incorporated in this Ordinance relate to the Summer Oaks
Crescent Center Planned Unit Development approved by the City in May, 2001.
C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments
contained in this Ordinance on October 28, 2003, and has forwarded its recommendations
to the City Council.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1, Policy 2 of the Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Element,
Coburg/Crescent Subarea is amended as follows:
The City shall recognize the area south of Crescent Avenue and west of Shadow
View Drive, as depicted on the Willakenzie Land Use Diagram (and as refined by
Inset Map D), as appropriate for the expansion of Neighborhood Commeroiai
development. The Neighborhood Commercial site shall not exceed 10 acres in
size. Uses in this commercial area are intended to serve the day-to-day shopping
and service needs of residents and employees of the surrounding area.
Section 2. The "Clinic or other Medical Health Treatment Facility" entry under the
Medical, Health, and Correctional Services category of Table 9.2160 in Section 9.2160 of
Ordinance- 1
the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
Table 9;2t60 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements
c-1 IO-2
Clinic or other Medical Health Treatment Facility i P(1) P P ' P--ig') P *
(in~!~ding mental health) j
~ection 3. Subsection (10)(a) of Section 9.9700 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide:
9;9700
WillakenZie Area Plan Policies,
(t0)
Land Use ELement - No~h Region, Coburg/Crescent Subarea,
(a) The City shall recognize the area south of Crescent Avenue and
west of Shadow View Drive, as depicted on the Willakenzie Land
Use Diagram (and as refined by Inset Map D), as appropriate for
the expansion of Neighborhood Commercial development. The
Neighborhood Commercial site shall not exceed 10 acres in size.
Uses in this commercial area are intended to serve the day-to-day
shopping and service needs of residents and employees of the
surrounding area. (Policy 2)
section 4. The findings set fOrth
findings in support of this Ordinance.
in Exhibit A attached hereto are adopted as
section_ 5. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City
AttOrney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or
in Other proviSions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or
repealed herein.
section 6. 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
Ordinance
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof,
Section_7. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its
passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.,
Passed by the City Council this
3rd day of December, 2003
~it9 Recorder
Approved by the Mayor this
3rd day of December, 2003
Ordinance - 3
Exhibit A
Findings for Summer Oaks Crescent Center
RA 03-1, CA 03-4
Area (.~O3L!) Eugene Code Section 9.8424 requires an
evaluation of any refinement plan amendment to determine whether the amendment is consistent
with the following criteria shown in bold and italics.
EC 9.8424(;I)(a): The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning
goals.
Goal 1 - C~tizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportuniO; for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions fbr citizen involvement which ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements fbr such
involvement. The action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
adopting these amendments complied with Goal 1 since it complied with. and surpassed the
requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions.
The Willakenzie Area Pt_ ag amendment is limited to text changes within the Coburg-Crescent
Subarea and specifically the development site in the Summer Oaks Crescent Center Final
Planned Unit Development (PUD). (City file: PDF 0t-2) The plan amendment is subject to the
Type IV public notification and hearing process beginning at EC 9.7410.
On August 22~ 2003, Plying staff deemed the Willakenzie Area Plan. amendment complete and
ready for processing. On September 8, 2003, the Eugene City Cotmcil initiated the code
amendment being processed concurrent with the plan amendment according to the T)q~e V
procedures beginning at EC 9.7500.
On August 28, 2003, a referral concerning the pending applications was sent to the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), School District 4J, Lane County Public Works, Lane
Transit District and other service providers. In addition, a referral was sent to the Cal Young
Neighborhood Group. On September 10, 2003~ the City mailed notice of the proposed plan and
code amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by EC
9.7415(1) and EC 9.7520(1) mad in accordance with State statutes.
On September 26~ 2003, notice of the Planning Commission public heating was mailed to fhe
apphcant, owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property, the Cal
Young neighborhood group, and other communky organizations requesting such notice in
accordance with EC 9.7415(2).
On October 28, 2003~ the Eugene Planning Commission conducted a public heating on the plan
and code amendments. After receiving public testimony from all those present wishing to speak,
Exdhib~t A Page 1
fhe Planning Commission closed the public hearing and record. The Planning Commission than
began deliberations and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council.
In accordance with Eugene Code provisions, additional public notice was provided concerning
the December 1, 2003, public hearing of the City Council
These processes afford ample opportunity fbr citizen involvement consistent with Goal
Therefore~. the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy
fi'amework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use 2£land and to assure an
adequate factual base Jbr such decisions and actions.
The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support this ordinance as Goal 2
requires. Further, the Goal 2 coordination requirement is met. Goal 2 requires that plans be
coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for
re¼ew and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination
requirement, the City' coordinated the adoption of these amendments with ali affected
governmental -units. Specifically, notice was mailed to: Lane County, Springfield~ Lane Transit
Distrqct; Eugene Water and Electric Board; Eugene School District 4J; and the following state
agencies: Department of Land Conservation and Development and Oregon Departrnen~ of
Transportation. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for this ordinance.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The amendments are for property located within the city limits and do not affect any land
designated for agricultural use. Therefbre, Goal 3 is not applicable or relevant to the
amendments.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve fores~ lands by maintaining the fbrest land base and
to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient fores~
practices that assure the continuous growing and ha~westing offorest ~ree species as the
leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish
and wildI~£e resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
The amendments are for property located within the city limits and do not affect any land
desigmal;ed for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 is not applicable or relevant to the amendments.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources:
consem,e open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
These amendments do not create or amend the area's hst of Goal 5 resources, do not amend, a
Exhibit A Page 2
code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant
Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundapy. Therefore,
Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the
qualiO; of the air, water and land resources of the state.
The prior action to apply the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to the subject property was a
significant step 'towards implementing the nodal development concept; an approach to integration
of land use and transportation planning that seeks to increase the use of alternative modes of
transportation and reduce demand fbr automobile-related transportation facilities. ~creasing the
use of alternative modes of transportation will help to improve regional and local air quality. The
arnendments further the concept of nodal development by permitting a broader range of uses and
providing additional opportunities for residents in the northeast area of Eugene to have access to
employment and commercial services, specifically medical clinics. Therefore, the amendments
are consistent witt~ Goat 6.
Goal 7 ~ Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: 7'o protect lek and
property from natural disasters and hazards.
The subject parcels are not located within known areas of natural disasters or hazards. The site is
outside the 500-year flood zone and is not subject to hazards normally associated with steep
slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. Other hazards, such as earthquakes and severe winte'r storms can
be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building codes and building
techniques. Based on these facts, the proposed designation will not result in development in
areas normally associated with natural disaszer or the damage and loss of life normally associated
therewith. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs qf the citizens of the
state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to the citizens of the state. The proposed
designation will not ira_pact provision of recreation facilities, Access to recreation opportunities,
including a future City park localed north of the subject property, and west of Grand Cayman, will
not be affected as a result of the proposed amendment. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent 'with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 ~ Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
sta~e for a variety of economic activities vital to &e health. 'welJ:dre, and prosperity
Oregon's citizens.
Exhibit A Page 3
l'he property specifically affected by the amendments is designated in the Metro Plan and the
Willakenzie .Aa~ea Plan as Commercial/Nodal Development". The con'anercial designation is
ned in the QvSllakenzie Area Plan as "Neighborhood Commercial". (Inset Map D,
page 65.) The property is within the Crescent Avenue Nodal Development Area. The
amendments do not change the plan designation of the Summer Oaks Crescent Center. The
amendments do not chm~ge the existing zoning of the property (C~l Neighborhood Comanerciat).
There is no cha~nge in the quantity of land available for commercial development. The
amendments only include removal of a specific prohibition against clinics. In all other areas in
Eugene, medical clinics are a permitted use in C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Removal of the
restriction on clinics will provide additional opportunities for medical fhcilities enhancing the
variety of economic activity that can occur on the site and better addressing the health needs of
Oregon's citizens. Therefore~ the amendments are consistent with statewide planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
The area affected by th~s ordinance is entirely planned and zoned for commercial use. The
proposed change in policy to allow clinics will not impact the supply or availability of residential
land. 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 fi~citities and services to serve as a framework for urban
and rural develo~2ment.
The area affected by this ordinance is located in the city limits and served by pu?t>tic facilities in
'which the existing level of service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future
development. Therefore, the an~endments are consistent with statewide plato:ting Goal 1 t.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a sqfe, convenient and economic
zransportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-12). The
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional
policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level. The previous addition of
the "ND Nodal Development" Metro Plan Diagram designation on the subject property
implemented pohcy direction in the TransPlan, ackmowledged for compliance with Goat 12 in
2001.
TransPlan Land Use Policy 5, which was also adopted as Metro Plan Transportation Policy F-5,
specifically' relates to the completion of "nodal development plans" and states:
Land Use Policy 5: ~thin three years of TransPlan adoption, apply' the ND, Nodal
Development designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply
measures ~o protect designated nodes fi~om incompatible development and adopt a
schedule for completion of nodal developmem plans and implementing ordinances.
EX~fib/t A - Page 4
The City of Eugene has adopted and applied the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to protect
the Crescent Avenue node from incompatible development. The amendments will increase the
diversity of uses and employment opportunities that may occur within the Crescent Avenue node.
Medical clinics are a compatible use within a transit oriented developments
Under the state TPR, a locM government must provide a form ofmit, igation described in OAR
012-0060(1) when the local government adopts amendments to land use regulations which
significantly affect a transportation facility. A land use regulation amendment "significantly affects a
transportation facility" if it meets one of the following four factors:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
~/?~cility;
The proposed ordinance does not change the functional classification of a~ny transportation facility.
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
The proposed ordinance does not change the standards for implementing a functional classification
system.
(c) Allows types or levels of uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are
inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
The proposed ordinance does not allow t)~es or levels of uses which would result in levels of travel
or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification ora transportation facility. The
amendments undo an action taken by the City in 1992 that prohibited the establishment of a clinic on
a specific commercial development site inthe Coburg/Crescent area of Eugene. Prior to the adoption
of the Willakenzie Area Plan in September 1992, the subject property was plarmed and zoned
Campus Industrial. During adoption of the Willakenzie Area Plan, the land use designation of the
suni ect property"was changed to Neighborhood Commercial with a specific policy prohibiting chnics
on the site. The prohibition on clinics had nothing to do with traffic impacts. In October I992, the
zoning of the site was changed from 1-1 Campus Industrial to C~I Neighborhood Commercial
consistent with the Willake:nzie Area Plan~ Since that time, the site has maintained its
Neighborhood Commemial zoning, allowing it to establish any other use allowed in the zone by the
City's acknowledged code and plans. The clinic use is no more traffic-intensive than_ many other
uses allowed on the site by the code and plans, such as a restaurant and the policy reasons that
supported the prohibitions no longer exist. The removal of the clinic prohibition does not result in
levets of travel of access which are inconsistent with the functional classification ora transportation
facility.
Further, the City's code requires 'that traffic impacts of any development proposal under this
ordinance that would otherwise have a significant affect on transportation facility must be mitigated
as part of the development's approval. The City of Eugene's Traffic Impact Analysis Review
Exhibit A - Page 5
process ensures that this ordinance does not run afbul of OAR 660-012-0060. The City Code
requires Traffic Impact Analysis Review whenever a proposed development will generate 100 or
more vehicle trips during any peak hour using the most recent edition of the institute of
Transportation Engineer's Trip__ Generation Manual. EC 9.8670(1). if such a use is proposed fbr
construction~ it is required to go hrough the City s Type II or Type III Traffic Impact Analysis
Review. Traffic Impact Analysis Review is also required for any development that will result in an
increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic pro,blems (based on cun'ent accident rates, traffic
volumes or speeds that warrant action under the City s traffic calming program), or that wilt result in
traffic in areas where the City has docun;tented pedestrian and/or bicycle safety concerns. As
discussed 'under (d), below, the City also requires a Traffic Impact Analysis Review if an engineering
analysis (the City's or another engineer's) indicates that approval of the development would result in
levels of service that would fail to meet adopted level of service standards.
Among other things, the Review requires that the development meet the purposes set out at 9.86507
including the provision of facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed
development through the use of traffic control devices and public or private improvements. EC
9.8650; 9.8680. This means that the development must include mitigation measures so that it does
not have a "significant impact on a transportation facility." The Review requires that a proposed
development must design and construct its traffic improvements to meet the City's standards,
including required right~of-way and paving widths according to the street's fhl~Cfional classification
system. EC 9.8680; 9~6505; 9.6870. A development that fails to meet this (or any other criterion a~
EC 9.8650) must be denied. Through this Review process, the City will ensure that a development's
impact on any transportation facility will be consistent with the functional classification for that
facility.
(d) kIZoutd reduce the performance standards ef the facility below the minimum acceptable
level ident~ed i~ TransPlan.
The proposed ordinance will not reduce the performance standards of any facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in TransPlan.
Further, as described above, the City's code requires that traffic impacts of any development
proposal under this ordinance that would otherwise have a significant effect on transportation facility
must be mitigated as part of the development's approval. The City of Eugene's Traffic Impact
Analysis Review process ensures that this ordinance does not run afoul of OAR 660-012-0060. The
City' Code requires Traffic Impact Analysis Review whenever an engineering analysis (the City's or
another engineer's) of a proposed development indicates that approval of the development would
result in levels of service that would fail to meet adopted level of service standards. As discussed
above~ through this Review process, the City- will ensure that a development that is proposed-under
this ordinance will not reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum
acceptable level identified in TransPlan.
As shown in the analysis provided above, the ordinance is consistent with Statewide Plam~ing
Goal 12~
Exhibit A - Page 6
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To consetwe energy.
Goat 13 states, m part, that land use p! arming should, "to the maximum extent possible, combine
increasing densky ~adients along high capacky transportation corr4dors to achieve greater
energy efficiency'' (see Goal 13, guideline 4). The overall intent of nodal development is to
provide compact urban level dev$1°pment along high capacity transit corridors. The location of
the subject site proximate to Beltline (a major arterial), and being directly adjacent to Coburg
Road and Crescent Avenue (both minor arterials) accomplishes this intent. As noted previously
in this report, Coburg Road has been selected as a priority corridor for enhanced transit service
(BRT). Therefore, the a-mendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use~
For all oftheproperties affected by this ordinance, all necessary urban services are in place.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Storewide Planning Goal 14.
Goal 15 - Willamette R~ver Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural scenic, historical, agricultural economic and recreational qualities qf lands
along the Willamette River as the Willamette River GreenwcL¥.
The subject sites axe r~ot within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not
relevant and the amendments will not affect compliance with Goal 15.
Goals 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and
Ocean Resources):
There are no coastal, ocean, esmarine~ or beach and dune resources 'related to the property or
involved in the amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not
affect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
EC 9.8424(1)(b): The rqfinement pIan amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of
the ~etro Plan
As indicated in the applicant's written statement, "None of the substantive portions of the Metro
Plan will be invoked or affected by this amendment. The process used to make this amendment
is consistent with Finding 3, page iv-l, which states that refinement plans are appropriate in areas
of development pressure and with Policy 3.c, page 1V-2, which anticipates refinement plan
anlendments.'
EC 9.8424(D(c9: The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of
the refinement plan.
Exhibit A Page 7
The amendments do not create any inconsistencies with other portions of the Willakenzie Area
Plan. The refinement plan actually identifies the area as suitable for neig?iborhood coroxnercial
uses.
EC 9.8424(2): The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the pubh'cation of the Refinement Plan.
This ordinance is not based on an error in the publication of the Willakenzie Area Plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal
This ordinance is not based on new inventor3' material relating to a storewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
This ordinance is directly impacted by amendments to pohcies contained in the Metro Plan and
Willakenzie Area Plan related to Crescent Village, a proposed mixed use, transit oriented
development irnmediately to the north of the Suborner Oaks Crescent Center. The amendments
remove reference to a potential hospital and provide for a limited amount clinic space. (Refer to
additional findings under EC 9.8424(2)(d) below.)
(d) New or amended provisions in a federa! law or regulation, state statute, state regulations,
statewide planning g}mL or state agency land use plan.
This ordinance is not based on new or amended sta~e or federal laws, regulations, or policies.
(e) A change qf circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the
Refinement P~an was adopted.
A s~gnificant change of circumstances has occurred that directly affects this ordinance.
SpeCifically, Peac~ealth decided not to build a hospital on th~ 36-acre site on the north side of
Crescent Avenue immediately across from the subject property. The anticipated presence of the
h°spital and, more particulariy, the demand it wot~id creat~ for ancillary clinics and other medical
service providers, led to the Wiilakenzie Area Plan policy this amendrnent seeks to change.
Additional findings from the apphcant's written statement are hereby incorporated herein.
rime Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires an evaluation of any code
amendment to determine whether the change is consistent with the following criteria shown in
bold and italics.
EC 9.8065(1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land
Conservation and DeveIopment Commission.
Ex3fibit A - Page 8
See findings under EC 9.8424(1)(a)~ above.
EC 9,8065(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and appFcable
a refinement plans.
See findings under EC 9.8424(1)(b) and 9.8424(1)(c)~ above.
EC 9.8065(3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020
Criteria.fo~ Establishment of an S Special Area Zone.
No special area zone is established by the ordinance.
Exhibit A - Page 9