Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Atrium Building – Sloat Room www.eugene‐or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541)682-5481. WEDNESDAY, April 10, 2013 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) Assessors Map: 17-03-20-44 Tax Lot: 101 Location: 955 Coburg Road Request: Change of zoning from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential Applicant: Amber Benson Applicant’s Representative: Anne Delaney, Bergsund and Delaney Architects Lead City Staff: Zach Galloway, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5485 E-mail: zach.a.galloway@ci.eugene.or.us Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the proposal. 4. Public testimony from those in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene-or.us/hearingsofficial.  Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning ZONE CHANGE STAFF REPORT Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) Application File Name (Numbers): Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) Applicant’s Request: To change the zoning from R-1 Low-density Residential to R-2 Medium-density Residential. Subject Property/Location: Tax Lot 00101 of Lane County Assessor’s Map 17-03-20-44; Located on Coburg Road immediately south of Tandy Turn. Relevant Dates: Zone Change application submitted on January 18, 2013; application deemed complete on February 15, 2013; public hearing scheduled for April 10, 2013. Applicant’s Representative: Anne DeLaney, Bergsund DeLaney Architecture & Planning Lead City Staff: Zach Galloway, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682- 5485. Background and Present Request The applicant is requesting approval to change the zoning of the subject property (Tax Lot 00101 of Assessor’s Map 17‐03‐20‐44), located along Coburg Road between Tandy Turn to the north and Tomahawk Lane to the south. The total area of request is approximately 0.99 acres in size. The subject property is developed with two structures that most recently were the location of a medical clinic. A medical clinic is not an allowed use in the R‐1 or R‐2 zoning district. Recently, the clinic relocated away from the subject property. Adjacent lands to the north, east, south, and west are developed with low‐density, single‐family residences. The subject property is in close proximity to numerous services and amenities via Coburg Road, a major arterial, and the interconnected local residential street network. Both Sheldon Plaza and the Oakway Center are within ½ mile, and several neighborhood schools are less than 1 mile away. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 Zone changes are reviewed for consistency with the regional Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the area‐specific refinement plan, Willakenzie Area Plan. Although it does not constitute an approval criterion, it is worth noting that the recently completed community vision Envision Eugene was presented to the City Council in March 2012. The City Council approved the recommendations contained therein; however, the document was not adopted. Comprised of seven overarching pillars and numerous implementing policies and action items, the vision seeks to make efficient use of lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Two of those pillars offer relevant context here. The fourth pillar – Promote Compact Urban Development and Efficient Transportation Options – specifically calls for the “transformation of …key transit corridors … as mixed‐use neighborhoods that foster active, walkable, community living by providing a mix of residential, commercial, retail, and public uses in proximity to one another.” Coburg Road is recognized as a key transit corridor due to the current transit level of service and future corridor for bus rapid transit extension (EmX). The fifth pillar – Protect, Repair, and Enhance Neighborhood Livability – calls for a variety of measures to “ensure a high level of livability, deter negative impacts, and make positive changes” as relates to neighborhood compatibility and infill development. The application of /SR Site Review overlay, as discussed later herein, is the preferred tool to address compatibility between zones. The Eugene Code (EC) requires City staff to prepare a written report concerning the subject land use applications. In accordance with EC 9.7320, Type III land use application procedures, the staff report is made available seven days prior to the public hearing in order to allow citizens an opportunity to review the staff analysis of the application. The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations. The Hearings Official will consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. Pursuant to EC 9.7330, the Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is made within 15 days from the close of the public record, following the public hearing. The quasi‐ judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. Referrals/Public Notice This zone change application was deemed complete on February 15, 2013. On February 21, 2013, staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), public agencies, and the adjacent neighborhood groups (Harlow Neighbors and Cal Young Neighborhood Association). Staff also mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on February 28, 2012. On March 7, 2013, staff mailed public notice of the proposed zone change and the hearing date to owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff has received written public testimony from 4 individuals via email, and staff has fielded 5 phone calls from area residents seeking additional information about the general differences between and potential effects of a zone change from R‐1 to R‐2 and opposition to the proposed change. The written public testimony is included in the official record. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 2 HO Agenda - Page 2 Staff Analysis The Eugene Code, EC 9.7330 and 9.8865, requires the Hearings Official to review an application for a zone change and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as to whether the proposed change is consistent with the approval criteria, as listed below in bold. EC 9.8865(1): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The applicant is requesting to change the base zoning of the subject property from R‐1 low density residential to R‐2 medium density residential. The Metro Plan plan diagram is not parcel‐specific in this case, and is depicted at a metropolitan scale. While the plan diagram is valid only at the formally adopted 11” by 17” size (1” = 7000’ scale), the unusual parcel configuration of the subject site makes the Medium‐Density Residential designation clearer than would otherwise be the case for a single parcel. Thus, it appears that the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential in the Metro Plan plan diagram. Text accompanying the Metro Plan diagram explains that the plan designation for individual parcels requires further interpretation by referring to adopted area refinement plans and other relevant planning documents. The applicable refinement plan is the Willakenzie Area Plan (1992), which is discussed in more detail in the following section. The Willakenzie Area Plan contains an adopted plan diagram that includes parcel boundaries and clearly designates the subject parcel as Medium‐ Density Residential. Along Coburg Road in close proximity, other properties are designated Medium‐Density Residential in both the Metro Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan diagrams. Further, it is worth noting that the Metro Plan plan diagrams dating to the mid‐1980s show the entire east side of Coburg Road – similar to a “bubble” diagram – as designated Medium‐Density Residential, which suggests the current designations are an attempt to move toward a parcel specific plan diagram, as shown in the refinement plan. The abutting properties are designated Low‐Density Residential and zoned accordingly R‐1 Low‐Density Residential, as summarized in Table 1. Any future development must address compatibility between the two zones. Table 1. Land Uses of properties abutting the subject property Metro Plan Direction Designation* Zone Existing Land Use Notes Low Density North Residential R‐1 Single Family residence ‐‐‐ Low Density East Residential R‐1 Single Family residence ‐‐‐ Low Density South Residential R‐1 Single Family residence ‐‐‐ Low Density Single Family West Residential R‐1 residence, Group home Across Coburg Road Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 The applicant’s request will make the site consistent with the Metro Plan land use plan diagram designation. Greater density along the Coburg Road corridor, not interior to the residential neighborhood to the east, is also recognized in the following policies as an appropriate form of infill. Residential Land Use and Housing Element The applicant’s written statement addresses this and other issues in the following policy excerpts taken from the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element. A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until rezoned for urban uses. A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB. A.11 Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation‐efficient nodes. A.12 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provisions of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. Policy A.2 states the obvious need to bring zoning in line with the overarching plan designation. The zone change proposal achieves this policy directive. Additionally, while Policies A.10, A.11, and A.12 do not explicitly give direction to increase densities along the Coburg Road corridor, the zone change does advance the policy directives contained therein. Numerous public services and infrastructure systems are located along the Coburg Road corridor, ensuring the potential higher density housing will be efficiently served by existing systems. The proposed zone change addresses each of the criteria contained within Policy A.11. There are commercial services and employment opportunities – Sheldon Plaza and Oakway Center – within ½ mile of the proposed zone change, and Coburg Road is a major multi‐modal corridor, with 4 vehicular travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and LTD bus service provided at 20‐30 minute headways. According to the Public Works Department referral comments, the subject site has adequate urban infrastructure – wastewater and stormwater – to handle the potential increase in dwelling units. Further, open space is available at Monroe Middle School, which is approximately 1/3 mile to the east and recreation fields are open to the public outside school hours via joint use agreements between the City of Eugene and the 4J School District. Planning staff considers the following Metro Plan policies applicable and worth discussion, but they were not discussed by the applicant. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 4 HO Agenda - Page 4  A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in‐fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods. A.17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost, and location. A.23 Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed‐use development on surrounding uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standards or guidelines in local zoning and development regulations. As called for in Policy A.13, the proposed zone change would create an opportunity for greater residential density; however, the remainder of the policy language cannot fully be addressed through a zone change, as it primarily relates to the physical design of any future development proposal on the subject site. The City of Eugene has adopted design standards for multi‐family housing development projects that are intended to improve design quality. But, when this policy is read in conjunction with Policy 8 of the Willakenzie Area Plan, described herein under the EC 9.8865(2) section, Planning staff feels it appropriate to also apply the Site Review (/SR) overlay at the time of zone change. Next, the vast majority of housing stock in the greater Willakenzie area is comprised of single‐ family residential dwellings. As directed by Policy A.17, the proposed zone change provides an opportunity to diversify the housing types, density, size, and most likely average costs. The R‐1 Low Density Residential and R‐2 Medium Density Residential zones provide for a similar variety of residential dwelling types, but the R‐2 zone offers more ‘by right’ uses without special regulatory processes (e.g., PUD), greater density, and smaller lot sizes, all of which address the density, size, and cost factors. Policy A.23 is essentially a directive to create compatibility standards between low‐density residential and higher‐density residential uses. As noted previously, the EC 9.5500 multi‐family standards are intended to improve design quality and address compatibility. In line with Policy A.13, this policy direction further underscores the need to handle sensitively the interface between R‐1 and R‐2 zones. A review of other R‐2 Medium Density Residential zoned properties within the Willakenzie Area Plan reveals a consistent practice of applying the Site Review (/SR) overlay. Planning staffs favors a consistent application of the overlay. Transportation Element F.3 Provide for transit‐supportive land use patterns and development, including higher intensity, transit oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations; medium‐ and high‐density residential development within 1⁄4 mile of transit Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 5 HO Agenda - Page 5  stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned transit. The proposed R‐2 zone allows higher density residential along Coburg Road, which is a classified as a major arterial roadway. It has 4 vehicular travel lanes, sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and is well served by three LTD bus routes along the segment that abuts the subject site. Furthermore, the existing land use patterns provide for two commercial and employment nodes at Oakway Center and Sheldon Plaza, each of which is approximately ½ mile from the subject site. A last variable to consider is future extensions of the Lane Transit District bus rapid transit (BRT) system, known as EmX. The EmX long‐term master plans include northward extensions on Coburg Road. Energy Element J.7 Encourage medium‐ and high‐density residential uses when balanced with other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest relative densities of residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest extent possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, paratransit, and foot and bicycle paths. As noted above, the proposed zone change provides for greater density along a major multi‐modal transportation corridor that is well served by transit, is striped with bicycle lanes, and includes sidewalks for its full length within the City of Eugene. The prospect of attached dwelling units, either townhouse or multi‐family apartments, will result in shared walls, which are more efficient and provide energy savings to the community and immediate cost savings to the resident. Based on the above findings, staff concludes that the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. EC 9.8865(2): The proposed change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. The applicable adopted refinement plan for the area of the proposed zone change is the Willakenzie Area Plan. As described in the Willakenzie Area Plan, the policies are adopted by the City Council as guidance for decision making within the plan area. The statements that follow some policies – numbered as a subset (e.g., 1.2) – are considered Proposed Actions; these are recognized, but not adopted, by the City Council as possible ways to carry out the policy directive. A review of the relevant policies and proposed actions follows. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 6 HO Agenda - Page 6 Land Use Element Land Use Policies and Proposed Actions 1. The City shall use the Land Use Diagram and accompanying text and policies of the Willakenzie Refinement Plan, as well as other applicable City goals, policies, and plans, to provide policy direction for public decisions affecting the plan area. 3. Retain existing significant vegetation whenever possible to provide buffering between residential and nonresidential uses, as well as between low‐density and higher density residential uses. 6. Minimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility between low‐density and higher density residential land uses as well as between residential and nonresidential land uses. The applicant’s written response addresses Policy 1 and 6 listed above. Planning staff also views Policy 3 as relevant. Policy 1 provides a clear directive to Planning staff when conducting land use analyses, such as reviewing a zone change application, within the Willakenzie area. It is worth noting that where inconsistencies exist between the Metro Plan and any refinement plan, the Metro Plan is the controlling document. Policies 3 and 6 are related to compatibility between dissimilar uses. Policy 6 is more general in nature, and Policy 3 provides a specific means – vegetative buffering – to provide a typical compatibility measure between such uses. The City has adopted Multi‐Family Standards (EC 9.5500) that are intended to improve many design facets of apartment complexes, and there are incentives in place to encourage preservation of existing trees during development proposals. The subject site is a heavily wooded residential lot, and every effort should be taken during any future development proposal to preserve the existing trees in a responsible manner. Application of the /SR Site Review overlay would help address this and regulate tree protection as a component of compatibility measures. Residential Policies and Proposed Actions 1. Maintain the existing low density residential character of existing neighborhoods, while recognizing the need to provide housing for all income groups. 2. Require new medium‐density residential development in the Willakenzie area to achieve a minimum density level of 10 dwelling units per acre and new high‐density residential development to achieve a minimum density level of 15 dwelling units per acre. If a future citywide code amendment establishes different minimum density levels than are established in this plan, the levels established in the code will take precedence, except in the Chase Gardens High‐Density Residential area. Development in this area shall achieve a minimum density of no less than 15 dwellings units per acre. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 7 HO Agenda - Page 7  4. Encourage a mixture of housing densities and types to address the housing needs of a diverse population. 5. Encourage medium‐ and high‐density residential uses in areas which have good access to commercial services, public open space, schools, parks, transit and other alternative modes of transportation. 8. Promote compatibility between low‐density residential land uses and medium‐ to high‐ density residential land uses. 8.1 Apply the site review /SR suffix to all parcels designated medium‐ or high‐density residential land use which directly abut low‐density residential land uses. The applicant’s written statement recognizes that the proposed zone change creates a transition from the busy arterial roadway Coburg Road to the low‐density residential areas east of the subject site. Additionally, while there is no correlation between housing type and household income, it is worth recognizing that the housing types typically built in R‐2 – apartment, condominium, townhouse – tend to accommodate a different demographic, such singles, young families, and retirees, than do suburban, single family dwellings. This directly advances the Policy 4 directive in an area of the community that is predominantly comprised of single‐family detached dwellings. Furthermore, the applicant’s assertion that higher density along the corridor is an appropriate transition is reinforced by Policy 5, as well as the previously described Envision Eugene community vision statement. Policy 5 is largely redundant with Metro Plan policy direction described in the first section of the Staff Analysis. In brief, the location of the subject site has simple and direct access to the items listed in Policy 5. As anticipated by Policy 2 at the time of area plan adoption, the minimum densities were subsequently established for the R‐2 Medium‐density Residential district citywide. Today the R‐2 zone has a density range of 10‐28 dwelling units per net acre. Policy 8 addresses the common theme of compatibility between low‐density residential areas and higher density or non‐residential adjacent uses. The applicant’s written statement contends that the City’s adopted Multi‐Family standards are sufficient to ensure compatibility measures are incorporated into any future development proposal. Additionally, Proposed Action 8.1 calls for the City to apply the Site Review overlay (/SR) to all parcels zoned for higher density residential that abut low density residential. The Proposed Action cannot be implemented proactively, as its application is determined by the existing base zone and adjacencies. Instead, it has been applied incrementally at the time of a zone change. A review of other R‐2 Medium Density Residential properties along Coburg Road reveals a consistent practice of applying the Site Review (/SR) overlay. The /SR overlay does not introduce new standards or change the Multi‐Family Standards with which a future development proposal must comply, but it does provide for a review process that includes public notification and a more thorough review of relevant compatibility techniques, such as tree preservation concerns recognized in the Willakenzie Area Plan. Planning staff favors a Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 8 HO Agenda - Page 8 consistent application of the overlay in accordance with the proposed action. In light of public comments received and concerns heard over potentially increased density, staff also views the more inclusive public process as preferable. Land Use Regions and Subareas Central Region, 3. Harlow Subarea Harlow Policies and Proposed Actions 4. With the exception of four parcels (tax lots 4802, 4803, 4804, and 4301 – Assessor’s Map 17‐03‐20‐44), all of which are zoned and designated medium‐density residential, the City shall consider the area on the east side of Coburg Road, between Tandy Turn and Harlow Road, as appropriate for low‐density residential uses. 4.1 Amend the Metro Plan Diagram from medium‐density to a low‐density residential land use designation for the above‐referenced area, as depicted on the Willakenzie Land Use Diagram. The applicant’s written statement correctly notes that the subject site is not one of the four parcels listed in Policy 4. As noted earlier, refinement plan policies are adopted by City Council and the proposed actions are not. The proposed actions are recognized in the Willakenzie Area Plan as “possible ways to carry out policy.” With the context provided by the Proposed Action 4.1, one can see that the Medium‐Density Residential designation was in effect and preceded adoption of the Willakenzie Area Plan. This is confirmed by Metro Plan diagrams dating to the mid‐1980s that depict a large swath of the east side of Coburg Road as designated Medium‐Density Residential. In this case, Proposed Action 4.1 was not acted upon, nor was it included as a priority in the “Implementation of the Plan” section of the Willakenzie Area Plan. Therefore, the Willakenzie Area Plan plan diagram and the more specific Harlow Subarea plan diagram both retain the Medium‐ Density Residential designation on the subject site, and the Metro Plan plan diagram similarly designates the subject site, although there are inherent ambiguities in a plan diagram depicted at general scale. However, the unusual parcel configuration of the subject site makes the land use designation clearer than would otherwise be the case for a single parcel. Unlike the Metro Plan plan diagram, the refinement plan diagrams depict parcel lines, which make clear the subject site’s Medium‐Density Residential designation. Thus, both the Metro Plan and the refinement plan maintain consistent Medium‐Density Residential designations for the subject site. The applicant states that an inconsistency exists between the plan diagrams and the Policy 4 text of the Willakenzie Area Plan. In the case of inconsistencies, the Metro Plan (Chapter IV, Policy 12) and EC 9.8865(2) provide clear decision making guidance, as both documents state that the Metro Plan takes precedence and is the controlling document. While the Metro Plan plan diagram is subordinate to Metro Plan policy, there is no Metro Plan policy with which to be inconsistent; therefore, the Metro Plan designation controls over refinement plan policy. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 9 HO Agenda - Page 9 Planning staff reviewed the perceived inconsistency between the refinement plan diagram and Harlow Subarea Policy 4. Upon extensive review, staff determined that the policy is not drafted as a mandate. Instead, due to the general indistinct language – “consider” and “appropriate,” the policy is an advisory statement toward the City that must be considered and acknowledged in the course of analysis. Policy 4 lacks a definitive prohibitive criterion that explicitly precludes the current Medium‐Density Residential designation or discourages implementing zone changes. Lacking such definitive direction, Harlow Subarea Policy 4 is read as a general policy that must be weighed within the larger context of the policy direction stated previously herein. When Policy 4 is read in conjunction with the other relevant policies (e.g., Metro Plan – A.2, A.11, A.13, A.17, F.3; Willakenzie Area Plan – Residential Policies 1, 4, and 5), staff is steered toward support for the proposed zone change. Based on the above findings, and with the addition of the /SR Overlay to address compatibility, Planning staff views the proposed zone change as consistent with the applicable Willakenzie Area refinement plan. EC 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Key urban facilities and services are defined in the Metro Plan as: wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, City‐ wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district‐wide basis (see Metro Plan, page V‐3). The applicant’s response includes a thorough review of the key urban facilities and services. That review asserts and City staff concurs that the uses and density allowed by the proposed R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential zone on the subject property can be serviced by existing urban facilities and services. Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the following key urban facilities and services are available to the subject property as follows: both public wastewater and stormwater pipes are located within Coburg Road right of way abutting the subject property and have sufficient capacity to for proper disposal; access is provided via Coburg Road, which is an arterial roadway served by transit, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. As the properties are already within the City limits, the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) will provide water and electric services. Police protection is provided by the City of Eugene and emergency and fire services are currently provided on a regional basis by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. A variety of telecommunications providers offer services throughout the Eugene/Springfield area. Planning and building permit services are provided by the City of Eugene. The properties are located in the Willakenzie parks planning area; parks and recreation services will be provided by the City of Eugene. Education services will be provided by the Eugene 4J School Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 10 HO Agenda - Page 10 District and the property will be served by Holt Elementary School, Monroe Middle School, and Sheldon High School. The minimum level of key urban services is currently available, or can be extended in an orderly manner to the subject property, as required. EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (f) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. The residential zone siting requirements contain specific restrictions on the location of the R‐1.5 Rowhouse zoning district, and therefore, it is not applicable to the proposed zone change. EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. The proposed zone change does not include the NR zone; this criterion does not apply. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule In the course of prior zone change application reviews, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development expressed concerns over local actions. While the Metro Plan has been acknowledged and local TransPlan projects are based on the adopted land use designations, the City of Eugene has chosen to include the following explanation of the applicable Oregon Administrative Rule. The applicant’s written statement addresses the relevant sections of Goal 12 Transportation in the context of Oregon Administrative Rules. The applicant’s responses, contained within the official record, concur with the City findings, as follows. As adopted, OAR 660‐012‐0060(1) states: (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the plan map; Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 11 HO Agenda - Page 11  (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and (c) The area subject to the amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660‐ 024‐ 220(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. In response to prior referral comments – not related to the subject application – received from DLCD Community Services Division, the City Attorney provided the following summary with regard to legislative history: By way of brief history, for LCDC’s December, 8, 2011, meeting, DLCD staff presented the LCDC with four options for the wording of 0060(9); Options #1, #1A, #2 and #2A. While Option #1 had majority support from the TPR‐RAC, based on DLCD staff’s recommendation, the LCDC‐OTC joint subcommittee recommended that LCDC adopt Option #2. Option #2 required a demonstration that “the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP assumptions about development of the area of the proposed amendment.” On December 9, 2011, in response to testimony and concerns raised by LCDC regarding Option #2 the previous day, DLCD presented LCDC with yet another option for 0060(9); Option #1B. This Option #1B, tweaked Option #1A by adding the phrase “and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP.” In DLCD’s December 9 document setting forth Option #1B, DLCD stated that the “variation on Option #1 was drafted based on testimony that proposed amendments should be allowed if they are consistent with both the comprehensive plan map and the TSP, but that Option #2 defined consistency too narrowly and would not work in many cases.” LCDC ultimately adopted a slightly revised version of Option #1B. Based on the plain language of the 0060(9), as well as LCDC’s specific rejection of Option #2 that would that would have required that the proposed zoning be “consistent with the TSP assumptions about development of the area of the proposed amendment,” the City believes that it is reasonable to find that a proposed zone change meets the criteria of 0060(9) if, in addition to satisfying the other criteria, the current comprehensive plan map designation (with which the proposed zone change is consistent) was in place in 2001, the year that the City Council adopted TransPlan. This finding is sufficient because, pursuant to state and local requirements, in order for the City Council to have adopted TransPlan, the Council was required to conclude that TransPlan is consistent with the City’s adopted comprehensive plan. A proposed zone that is consistent with the 2001 comprehensive plan map designation, together with the City Council’s conclusion in 2001 that TransPlan is consistent with the comprehensive plan map, is sufficient to support a finding that the proposed zone is consistent with TransPlan. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 12 HO Agenda - Page 12 For the reasons discussed below, the City finds that the proposed zone change does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility because all of the requirements in OAR 660‐ 012‐0060(9) are met. 0060(9) (a): The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the plan map: As discussed above at EC 9.8865(1), the subject properties are designated as Medium‐Density Residential on the City’s adopted comprehensive plan map (i.e., Metro Plan diagram). The proposed R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential zoning is consistent with the residential comprehensive plan map designation. The amendment does not change the plan map. 0060(9) (b): The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP: The City of Eugene’s adopted and acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the Eugene‐ Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan). The Eugene City Council adopted the current version of the plan on September 10, 2001, by Ordinance No. 20234.1 In 2001, the criteria for adopting TransPlan (classified as a “major update” to the 1986 version), was as follows: “(a) Consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) Consistency with the Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).” In support of its adoption of the 2001 TransPlan, the City Council adopted 50 pages of legislative findings demonstrating its compliance with these two criteria. Both before and since the City Council adopted the 2001 TransPlan, the subject properties were designated on the City’s adopted comprehensive plan map (i.e., Metro Plan diagram) as Medium‐ Density Residential. In adopting TransPlan, the City Council found it to be consistent with the Metro Plan, which includes the Metro Plan diagram. Since the 2001 Metro Plan diagram designated the subject properties as Medium‐Density Residential, the 2001 finding that TransPlan is consistent with the Metro Plan is a finding that TransPlan is consistent with a medium‐density residential use on the subject property. Because a medium‐density residential zoning on these properties is consistent with the property’s comprehensive plan map designation, and TransPlan is consistent with the medium‐density residential designation, a medium‐density residential zoning on these properties is consistent with the City’s acknowledged TSP. Additionally, pursuant to OAR 660‐012‐0030(3), within UGBs, the determination of local and regional transportation needs must be based on population and employment forecasts and distributions that are consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The City’s 2001 finding that TransPlan is consistent with OAR 660‐012‐0030(3) specifically states that TransPlan relied on the same forecasts and distributions that were relied upon for the Metro Plan periodic 1 The City Council has subsequently amended TransPlan by Ordinance No. 20442 (enacted on November 9, 2009) and Ordinance No. 20461 (enacted on August 11, 2010). Those amendments are immaterial to these findings. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 13 HO Agenda - Page 13 review. Because the 2001 Metro Plan designates the subject properties as Medium‐Density Residential, the forecasts and distributions relied upon for TransPlan were based on that same plan designation. Since TransPlan was found to be consistent with OAR 660‐012‐0060(3), and acknowledged as such, the City finds that the determination of transportation needs, as embodied in and addressed by TransPlan, is consistent with the subject property’s medium‐density residential designation. 0060(c): The area subject to the amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660‐024‐220(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule bur the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. The subject properties were not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment. Based on the findings above, the proposed zoning map amendment does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 14 HO Agenda - Page 14 Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential with the additional /SR Site Review Overlay. Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following close of the public record, the Eugene Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny this application. The decision shall be based upon and be accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. The entire application file is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices and online at http://ceapps.eugene‐or.gov/PDDONLINE/LandUse/ApplicationSearch. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing, including the applicant’s written statement, Planning staff report, and an itemized index of all written testimony and related evidence submitted for this case. These materials will also be made available for review at the public hearing. Attachments 1. Vicinity map. For More Information: Please contact Zach Galloway, AICP, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division: (541) 682‐ 5485 or zach.a.galloway@ci.eugene.or.us Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) April 10, 2013 15 HO Agenda - Page 15  Benson, Amber (Z 13-2) 17-03-20-44/00101 Change in zoning from R‐1 Low Density Residential to R‐2 Medium Density Residential Bailey Ln ay uffW Sharon Way Forrester Way Mallory Ln Tandy Turn Forrester Way Corydon St Tandy Turn [ Coburg Rd Firwood Way Tomahawk Pl Tomahawk Ln e Pion ah t Tom er C awk Turnbull Ln Ct a or lm M De ga ay Pio n d ic k W nee Ly Suffolk Ct Pl r Pik e Santa Anit Harlow Pio Rd ne e Zoning PL Public Land ´ R-1 Low Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential [ Subject Site HO Agenda - Page 16 2/22/13