HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19868ORDINANCE N0.19$68
AN aRDINANCE ING ExffiBIT "B" TG
ORDINANCE N4.19795 BY ADUPTING SUPPLEMENTAL
FINDINGS SUPPGRTING THAT AMENDMENT TG THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METRQPGLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that;
A. Un September 9, 1991, the City Council of the City of Eugene adopted
Grdinance No. 19795 to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
by redesignating property identibed as Assessor's Map 17-02.31, tax lots 300 and 700, from
light-medium and heavy industrial to a combination of medium density residential, light-
medium industrial and commercial land uses,
B. The City of Springl~eld and Lane County adapted the same amendments
pursuant to Metra Plan amendment procedures cited in the Metro Plan and in Chapter
9 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
C. The action of the City of Eugene was appealed to the aregon Land Use
Board of Appeals, which remanded the decision for additional findings to satisfy the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, concerning
impacts on school facilities.
D. The City of Springbeld and Lane County are taking action to add these
additional findings to their original actions adapting the Metro Plan amendment.
E. The Eugene City Council conducted a ,public hearing an the additional
landings on June 22, 1992 and is now ready to tape action.
F. Evidence exists within the record indicating the proposal meets the
requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and the requirements of applicable
state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY DF EUGENE DGES ORDAIN AS FGLLGWS;
Section 1. The Metro Plan diagram land use designations enacted by Ordinance
No. 19795 on September 9, 1991 z~emain in full force and e~£ect and are unchanged by this
Grdinance - 1
ordinance.
Section 2. The findings contained in Exhibit B to ordinance No. 19795 are
amended by adding supplemental findings in support of that action as set forth in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
26th day of August, 1992
~- City Recorder
ordinance ~ 2
26th day of August, 1992
V. ADDIT~Q~TAL F~11~DI~~GS ~l~ RE11zA.~VTD
Qn appeal of the subject plan amendment, the Cre on Land Use Board of A eal
g pp s
rejected three assignments of error and sustained only one, which asserted that "The
governing bodies erred in adopting the plan amendment which did not ro erI address an
P P y d
demonstrate compliance with Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, and did not satin h
. . fy t e
coordrnation requirement of Coal 2, Land Use Planning," LUBA determined that the
record failed to show that the proposed development would have minimal im act u on
S rin ~ P P
p g eld's public schools. Specifically, LUBA ruled that
"In view of the apparently limited existing school facilities in the area
respondent is required to impose sufficient limitations to assure com fiance
. P
with Gaal ~ 1 now, or to require as part of the challen ed decision that such
. g
Iimitat~ons be rmposed as part of the Mid-S rin field Refinement Plan
P g
amendments before development proceeds." LUBA Q inion at a e ~?.
P Pg
LUBA states that the problem may be remedied upon remand by a varlet of "a ro ri
„ • ~ y PP Pate
means, ~nclud~ng the follaw~ng:
a. The "challenged decision [could require that such conditions be im osed riot t
. P p o
development, as part of required Mid-Spr~ngfleld Refinement Plan amendments
rezoning, site review or other appropriate means." G inion at a e 16.
P Pg
b. "'other appropriate means' could include a ro riate nonre iota measur
PPP gu ry es, such
as recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions, to provide there aired assurances
q
that the property will not be developed in a way that violates Goal 11 school facilit
availabilit re air m ' ' y
y q e ents. Op~n~on at page ~~, footnote 14.
Upon remand, the City Council conducted a su Iementa ublic hearin limit
. PP ~' P g ed to the
scope of the issue defined by LUBA. Based upon the record as su lemented the C '
. PP ~ ounc~l
fends that the record now supports a findin that both "a ro riate means" id ' '
g Pp P ent~f~ed by
LUBA have been fully satisfied and that the pro osed ro'ect will have one minim `
. P P ~ y al impact
upon school capacity. Accordingly, the Council finds that there uirement of statewide Goal
. q
11 rn issue an remand has been satlsf~ed accordin to the terms of the remand.
g
Specificall ,the Council finds that
y
a. Gn March 2, 199, while the subject Metro Plan Amendment was under review b
y
the Land Use Board of Appeals, and prior to the Board's March 19 1992 decision
in that appeal, the City Council of the City of S rin field, u on notice and ublic
P g P P
hearing and consistent with the recommendation of the S rin field Plannin
. P g g
Camm~ss~on, adopted Qrd~nance No. 5616, amendin the S rin field Refinement
g P g
Plan to provide with respect to the subject ro ert that
P P y
Supplemental Findings an Remand - 1
f~
~X~E~6Tn., _ -- --~------
~A~E ~ DF~
"Residential uses on this MDR site will be further limited to housing
qualifying as housing for older persons under the 19S$ Amendments to the
Federal Fair Housing Act, and insofar as authorized by the I9$8 Fair Housing
Amendments and other applicable law, further limited to occupancy by
adults."
b. 4n April 2$,1992, the Applicant duly recorded as Document 9223325, Lane County
Department of Deeds and Records a declaration of restrictive covenants, executed
and acknowledged on said date by Daniel J. Kesler, President and Authorized Agent
of Good Neighbor Care Centers., owner of the subject property and applicant herein.
The restrictive covenant, like the refinement plan amendment, limits use of "all
_ residential uses on the property" to "housing qualifying as housing for elderly persons
under the terms of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 19$$ and authorized by
Oregon Revised Statutes DRS b59.o33~6}~a~.
The restrictive covenant is effective for "as long as any pardon of the subject property
is designated for residential use in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area Plan." The
declaration is made for the benefit of the City of Springfield and Springfield School
District # 19. The declaration provides that it is to touch and concern the property.
Because this plan amendment designates a substantial portion of the property as
residential at the Metro plan level, only another Metro Plan amendment can release
the property from the restrictions imposed by the Declaration.
The affected school district has reviewed the refinement plan amendment and the
declaration of restrictive covenants, and has advised that
". , .~~~t would appear that the restrictions provide assurance that the number
of school age children, and the potential impact of the project on the Schoal
District, would appear to only minimally impact the functional capacity
overload we are experiencing in the School District."
Based upan this and other evidence in the retard, the Council finds that the proposed
project will have minimal impact on affected schools and therefore does not unduly burden
school capacity in violation of Statewide Land Use Goal Eleven.
Supplemental Findings on Remand - Z
~XH16lT~.,..~.,~..~ ,
PAGE ~ ,a~ ~`