Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20162GRDINANCE NO. 20162 AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT T4 THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM AND THE WILLAKENZIE AREA PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF TAX LOT 3500, MAP 17-03- 29-11, FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL; DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE WILLAKENZIE AREA PLAN OAKWAY SUBAREA POLICY #2 TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND DENYING THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF TAX LOT 3500 FROM R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2lSR GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH SITE REVIEW SUBDISTRICT JAMES FAMILY TRUST}. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. 0n May 13,1998, James Family Trust ~"the applicant"} submitted an application for a Type ZI Metro Plan amendment, concurrent amendment to the willakenzie Area Plan refinement plan}, and concurrent zone change to redesignate and rezone 0.7 acres of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03- 29-11, from medium-density residential to commercial, and redesignate and rezone the remainder of tax lot 3540 and tax lots 2000, 4000, 4100 and 4200, Map 17-03-29-11 X1.9 acres}, from medium- density residential to low-density residential. ~n January 19, 1999, the applicant submitted a required transportation analysis and a zone change request, which were determined to be complete on January 26,1999. The re~.nement plan text amendment was proposed to revise Policy #2 of the Willal~enzie Area Plan Gakway Subarea to allow for this increase in commercial designations. B. This proposal came to the City of Eugene for action pursuant to procedures for amendment and refinement of the Metro Plan described in the Metro Plan and Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 SEC}, which establishes the Eugene City Council as the approval body for Type ~Z Metro Plan diagram amendments located within the incorporated city limits of Eugene. Since a text amendment to the refinement plan is required for consistency with the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment, a concurrent refinement plan amendment application was submitted by the applicant per EC 9.1364}. C. 0n February 2,1999, the Metro Plan amendment application was referred to Lane County and the City of Springfield, and referral notice of the application and public hearing information was mailed to the Harlow Neighbors and Cal Young Neighborhood Group. D. ~n February 17,1999, notice of the hearing was mailed to the owner of the property subject to the amendment, and to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property. Guard. E. On February 16,1999, notice of the hearing was published in the Eugene Register- Grdinance -1 F. On March 9,1999, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application. As per EC 9.13 D, the Planning Commission hearing was the sole evidentiary hearing on this application, and all evidence in support or opposition to the proposed amendment had to be introduced at the Planning Commission hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing a re nest q was made and approved that the record remain open for a period of seven days. 0n March 16,1999 the applicant submitted a written request to withdraw the request to redesignate and rezone 1.9 acres identified in the initial application. G. The Planning Commission met on March 30, 1999 to deliberate on the initial application and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application with modif cations. The modifications recommended by the Planning Commission, which are consistent with the applicant's March 16,1999 request, are as follows: 1 }allow redesignation of D.7 acres of land the western portion of tax lot 3 5D0, Map 17-03 ~29-11 } from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, and deny the redesignation and rezoning of the remainder of tax lot 3500, and tax lots ZDDD, 4D00, 41 DO and 4~DD, Map 17-D3-~9-11 from Medium Density Residential to low-density residential X1.9 acres of land}; ~} amend the willakenzie Area Plan to: a} limit the change in policy to one acre or less, b} limit the change in policy to area land-locked as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, c} specify the applicability to "depth" expansions as opposed to "linear" expansions, and d} apply the ~Villakenzie Commercial SitinglDevelopment Guidelines as site review criteria. H. On May 6,1999, the proposed amendment and notice of the City Council hearing on the amendment were mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as required by ORS 197.610. I. On June 1, 1999, notice of the Eugene City Council hearing was mailed to the applicant, neighborhood association and those who had requested to be placed on the Interested Parties list for the Metro Plan amendment. J. The Eugene City Council held a public hearing on the request on June 14,1999, and is now ready to take action on the requested amendment. The City Council hearing was on the evidentiary record created before the Planning Commission. K. Based on the evidence within the record and the findings hereinafter set forth, the City Council disagrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, and finds that the proposal does not meet the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the requirements of applicable state and local law. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The above findings are adopted. In addition, the City Council specifically finds that: 1.1 The Metro Plan encourages higher density residential areas over lower density Ordinance - Z areas when consistent with other planning policies, Policy #3 states that the City should "Encourage increased residential density at various locations within cities by implementing programs, policies, and code modifications that bath establish minimum densities and allow maximum densities permitted by local or Metropolitan Area General Plan density categories in designated areas..." Page 11I-A-6} 4n December 7, 1994, the Eugene City Council adopted code amendments which established minimum density standards in the medium and high density zones in order to insure that these zones achieve at least the lower threshold of those zoning designations. Adoption of these minimum density standards was a required work task of the current periodic review of the Metro Plan. To change the planning and zoning designations to a lower density with no minimum flow density is 0 -10 unitslacre} is clearly inconsistent with this action. 1.2 Zn the description of the Residential Land Use Designation, the text states that "While all medium- andhigh-density allocations shown on the diagram may not be needed during the planning period, their protection is important because available sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited." Page 1I-E-3} while not an adopted policy, this text provides background for the significance of these land use designations. 1.3 The Willakenzie Area Plan is a refinement of the Metro Plan and provides more detail for the area of the proposed amendment plan request, This Plan contains general policies, encouraging a mixture of housing densities, and supporting medium- and high- density residential uses inappropriate areas, such as those close to commercial services and alternative transportation modes. 1.4 The proposed amendment will result in a decrease in the percent of land available for medium density housing, and will decrease the opportunity to provide far a range of housing needs in this part of the community. 1.5 Based on the above f ndings, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1 ~. 1.6 1n addition, the proposed refinement plan amendment does not meet the criteria of EC 9.1452}~c}~1}through ~4}. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed amendment met the criteria for a refinement plan amendment under EC 9.145~b}, and the City Council disagrees with that conclusion. 1,7 No error in the publication of the Plan has been identified through any public review process concerning this subarea. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.145~Z}~c}~ 1 }. 1.S The applicant states that the diminishing amount of commercial land available for development in this area represents a change of circumstances to justify the ref nement plan amendment. The applicant has not provided any specific information to support this claim. In the less than six years since the refinement plan and the Commercial Lands Study were adopted in the fall of 1992, no such change of circumstances has been identified which Ordinance - 3 would necessitate a change in the plan. 1.9 In addition, the applicant argues that the irregular shape and lack of public street frontage far tax lot 3500 and the need to redevelop the existing C-2 along the east side of Coburg Road, in the vicinity of the subject property were not adequately evaluated in the development of the plan. Neither of these elements, however, represents a change of circumstances in a substantial manner which would necessitate a change in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}(2}. 1.10 No additional materials have been incorporated into the willakenzie Plan. This Plan is considered a current document and is used when evaluating other land use applications throughout the willakenzie area. 1,11 The applicant also states that the requirement for a traffic impact analysis addressing Oregon Administration Rules pertaining to Goal 12, Transportation, represents new circumstances enough to warrant reexamination of the elements of the willakenzie plan which address the subject property, namely the plan diagram and Dakway subarea Policy #2. However, the purpose of this requirement is to see if the proposed amendment significantly affects a transportation facility; it does not represent new inventory material which is to be incorporated into the plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}~3}. 1,12 There has been no change in public policy concerning the subject area. Zn the 4akway subarea, commercial and office development has been limited to existing areas zoned for those uses; zone change requests in 1973 and 1979 to increase commercial development were denied. when the willakenzie Plan was adopted in 1992, the city maintained this position. Unly those existing areas zoned for commercial development were designated commercial in the ~akway subarea of the Plan.ln its deliberation last fall, the Planning Commission determined that redesignating tax lot 3500 for commercial use would represent a major plan amendment, since it would amend a key policy in the plan. 1n its discussion, the Planning Commission upheld the validity and currency of the policies in the ~akway Subarea. 1.13 The Planning Commission's f ndings on this application concluded that the Council's adoption of the Crrowth Management Study ~GMS}policies constitutes a "change in public policy" for purposes of this criterion. The Council disagrees. The GMS policies were consistent with prior City policies. Moreover, the Resolution adopting the GMS policies expressly noted that the policies were not to be used for individual land use applications. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}~4}. Section 2. The request for Metro Plan Diagram land use designation far the property identified as the western 0.7 acres of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03-29-11, from Medium Density Residential to Commercial is denied. The request for redesignation of the remainder of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03-29-11 and tax lots 2000, 4004, 4100 and 4200, Map 17-03-29-11 from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential is denied. Ordinance - 4 Section 3. Consistent with the provisions of EC 9.1364}, the request to amend the '~Uillakenzie Area Plan land use diagram designation for the property identified as the western o.7 acres of tax lot 3500, Map 17-43-29-1 from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, is denied. Section 4. The request to amend the willakenzie Area Plan Oakway Subarea Policy #2 is denied. Section 5. The request to rezone the property identif ed as the western 0.7 acres of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03-29-11, is denied. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of July, 1999 ~ ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this h day of July, 1999 Mayor Ordinance - 5