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, September 4, 2013 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Old Coburg Road (Z 13-3) Assessors Map: 17-03-16-41 Tax Lot: 500/600/700 Location: 89295 & 89297 Old Coburg Road Request: Change of zoning from R-1 Low-Density Residential to R-2 Medium-Density Residential Applicant: Old Coburg Road, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us II. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Jeffries, Deborah (Z 13-5) Assessors Map: 17-03-0-00 Tax Lot: 304/305/306/1200/1201/1202/1207/1211 Location: 3800 North Delta Highway Request: Change of zoning from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential and R-2 Medium-Density Residential, and R-1/SR Low-Density Residential with Site Review overlay to R-1 Low-Density Residential Applicant: Eric and Deborah Jeffries Applicant’s Representative: Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: becky.g.taylor@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 OLD COBURG ROAD LLC (Z 13‐3) Application File Name (Numbers): Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) Applicant’s Request: To rezone the subject property from R‐1 Low‐Density Residential to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential Subject Property/Location: Six acres of vacant land located on the east side of Old Coburg Road, southwest of North Game Farm Road, north of Chad Drive; Tax Lots 500, 600, and 700 of Assessor’s Map 17‐ 03‐16‐41. Relevant Dates: Zone Change application submitted on April 23, 2013; supplemental information submitted (Transportation Planning Rule analysis) on July 1, 2013; application deemed complete on July 11, 2013; public hearing scheduled for September 4, 2013. Applicant’s Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, (541) 686‐4577 Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682‐5437. Background and Present Request The subject property is 270,507 square feet (6.2 acres) of vacant land located on the east side of Old Coburg Road, just south of the intersection of Old Coburg Road and North Game Farm Road, north of Chad Drive. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from R‐1 Low‐Density Residential to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential. The applicant’s written statement (see page 4) provides: additional property information, describing how the property is primarily surrounded by I‐1 Campus Industrial lands; and a list of prior land use decisions, including the re‐designation of the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium‐Density Residential (MA 06‐3). The request is to bring the zoning into compliance with the designation. Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 The Eugene Code (EC) requires City staff to prepare a written report concerning the subject land use applications. In accordance with the Type III land use application procedures at EC 9.7320, the staff report is made available seven days prior to the public hearing, 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 July 11, 2013. Planning staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation, public agencies, and the affected neighborhood groups (Northeast Neighbors) on July 17, 2013. Staff also mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on July 17, 2013. On August 1, 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. As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received. 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 criteria required for approval, shown below in bold typeface. 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 Metro Plan was amended in 2007 (MA 06‐3) to change the subject property’s land use designation from Campus Industrial to Medium‐Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R‐1 Low‐Density Residential, which is inconsistent with the plan designation. The requested zone change to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential will bring the property into compliance with the plan designation. With regard to other applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, the applicant’s written statement (see pages 5‐7) address several polices. To the extent these policies constitute mandatory statements, Staff concurs with these findings, with the exception of the policies relating to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The applicant originally asserted that the subject request was eligible for an exception to the TPR under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660‐012‐ 0060(9) because the proposing zoning is consistent with the plan designation. (In addition to Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 2 HO Agenda - Page 2 the applicant’s written statement, refer to the May 8, 2013 letter from Jim Hanks, JRH, which is included in the application file.) The City’s legal staff confirmed that the TRP exception under (OAR) 660‐012‐0060 (9) is not met in this case because the current plan designation of Medium‐Density Residential was established in 2007 (MA 06‐3), after the adoption of the acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is the 2001 Eugene‐Springfield Regional Transportation Plan (TransPlan). (This is discussed in more detail later in this report.) In response to the City’s read of the OAR, the applicant submitted an analysis prepared by JRH Transportation Engineering, to demonstrate compliance with the TRP, which is also evaluated later in this report. Based on the above findings, staff finds 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 (WAP). In 2007, the WAP was amended (RA 06‐2) concurrent with the Metro Plan (MA 06‐3), to change the land use designation of the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium‐Density Residential. As confirmed previously, the proposed R‐2 zone is consistent with the current land use designation. No policy changes (text amendments) were associated with the land use designation changes in 2007. With regard to applicable WAP policies, the applicant’s written statement (pages 6 – 12) addresses these in detail. Overall, staff agrees with the applicant; staff is uncertain, however, about one of the WAP polices, which seems to dictate the application of the /PD Planned Unit Development overlay zone. The subject property is within the Coburg/Crescent Subarea of the WAP; within that subarea is Policy 5, which reads as follows: 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. Encourage 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. Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 The applicant provides ample argument to show that the above factors could be addressed without planned unit development (PUD) procedures; namely, the above policy precedes current code standards that require compliance with street standards, setbacks, and landscaping. In fact, the code allows developers to elect PUD approval to provide flexibility from the code standards that otherwise apply to all development and are implemented during the building permit process. While staff understands that PUD procedures are an added cost to developing the subject property, and acknowledges that the current code standards that would apply to a development permit for the subject property would likely address the factors above, the explicit language of the policy that “The City shall require planned unit development procedures…” appears to dictate the application of the /PD overlay. Staff defers to the Hearings Official in making this determination, as to whether the /PD overlay is required. Otherwise, based on the above findings, and the applicant’s written statement, which is incorporated by reference, the zone change is consistent with the applicable 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). Referral comments, included in the application file, confirm that the uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed R‐2 zone on the subject property can be serviced through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. 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. Staff concurs with the applicant’s findings. 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. Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 4 HO Agenda - Page 4 Transportation Planning Rule: Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660‐012‐0060, Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), requires zone changes to demonstrate no significant effect on transportation facilities. As noted previously, and as reflected in the record, the applicant asserts that the proposed zone change is eligible for an exception from providing an analysis to determine no significant effect because the requested zone is consistent with the plan designation. Staff affirms that the proposed R‐2 zone is consistent with the Medium‐Density Residential designation of the subject property in the adopted Metro Plan, but not with TransPlan, which is the City’s acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP). As adopted, OAR 660‐012‐0060 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: (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. OAR 660‐012‐0060(9)(b) is not met because the acknowledged TSP (2001 TransPlan) is based on the former Campus Industrial designation of the subject property. As acknowledged by the applicant, TransPlan is based on Metro Plan land use designations. Although the Metro Plan was amended in 2007, to change the designation of the subject property from Campus Industrial to Medium‐Density Residential, TransPlan has not been amended since 2001. The assumption set of the current TSP (2001 TransPlan) was based on the subject property’s Campus Industrial designation. As such, staff cannot conclude that the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP. Staff acknowledges that, as part of the 2007 Metro Plan amendment process (MA 06‐3), the applicant provided evidence to confirm “no significant effect” under TPR; the designation change from Campus Industrial to Medium‐Density Residential projected a net reduction in trip generation. While it may seem contrary to logic to require yet another analysis to show compliance with TPR, it appears to be required by law. Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 5 HO Agenda - Page 5 To show no significant effect on the transportation system – to show compliance with TPR – the applicant must compare the trip generation of the existing R‐1 zoning with the proposed R‐2 zoning; this comparison results in a net increase in trip generation. The applicant ultimately provided an analysis, prepared by JRH Transportation Engineers. Staff confirms that the JRH report includes sufficient evidence (i.e. trip generation, distribution, horizon year, and performance evaluation) to conclude that the trips generated by the proposed zone will have no significant effect on the transportation system. The analysis relied on the existing transportation system, rather than any planned facilities. The applicant did not seek any reductions in trip generation rates (i.e. its proximity to a mixed‐use center). In other words, the analysis is conservative and sound. The analysis shows that the transportation system will continue to perform above adopted standards; the study intersections will not drop below level of service (LOS) B, which is well above the adopted standard of LOS D. The JRH report also addresses all of the applicable rules under OAR 660‐012‐0060, beginning on page 13, which is incorporated by reference. Based on these findings, staff believes the TPR is met. 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. Staff defers to the Hearings Official as to whether the /PD Planned Unit Development overlay zone is required. 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. Attachments A vicinity map is attached. The entire application file is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of the application materials for review prior to the public hearing. These materials will also be made available for review at the public hearing. For More Information: Please contact Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682‐ 5437; or by e‐mail, at: becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13‐3) August 2013 6 HO Agenda - Page 6  Old Coburg Road LLC (Z 13-3) 17-03-16-41/00500, 00600, 00700 Change in zoning from R‐1 Low Density Residential to R‐2 Medium Density Residential Val W ilmington Ct Cumberland D S tony Brook Way r ke Ave Roano Cape Hatteras Dr N Ga m [ e Fa rm Rd Old Coburg Rd [ [ Chad Dr Zoning I-1 Campus Industrial R-1 Low Density Residential ´ Eugene Urban Growth Boundary [ Subject Site HO Agenda - Page 7 7/15/13  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 JEFFRIES, DEBORAH AND ERIC (Z 13‐5) Application File Name (Numbers): Jeffries, Deborah and Eric (Z 13‐5) Applicant’s Request: To rezone the portion (about 109 acres) of the River Ridge Golf Course that was recently annexed (City file A 12‐6) as follows: on the west side of North Delta Highway, change the existing R‐1/SR Low‐Density Residential with Site Review Overlay to R‐1, dropping the /SR overlay; and on the east side of North Delta Highway, change the existing AG Agricultural zone to, primarily, R‐1 Low‐Density Residential, with the southern portion of the property to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential. Subject Property/Location: The River Ridge Golf Course at 3800 North Delta Highway, on the north side of Ayres Road, and on both sides of North Delta Highway. Tax Lots 304, 305, 306, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1207, and 1211 of Assessor’s Map 17‐03‐07‐00. Relevant Dates: Zone Change application submitted on July 1, 2013; supplemental information submitted July 27 (Metro Plan policy narrative), July 29 (refinement plan policy narrative), and July 31, 2013 (vicinity map, attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of Ordinance 19856); application deemed complete on July 31, 2013; public hearing scheduled for September 4, 2013. Applicant’s Representative: Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos, (541) 912‐5280 Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682‐5437. Background and Present Request The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property as follows: Tax Lots 1200, 1201, 1201, and 1207 (roughly 9.16 acres) from AG Agricultural to R‐1 Low‐Density Residential; Tax Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 1 HO Agenda - Page 8 Lot 1211 from AG Agricultural to, primarily, R‐1 Low‐Density Residential (31 acres) and, for the portion at the northeast corner of North Delta Highway and Ayres Road, to R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential (15 acres); and to drop the /SR Site Review overlay zone from the property on the west side of North Delta Highway, which is currently zoned R‐1/SR Low‐Density Residential with Site Review overlay, involving Tax Lots 305 and portions of 305 and 306. The Eugene Code (EC) requires City staff to prepare a written report concerning the subject land use applications. In accordance with the Type III land use application procedures at EC 9.7320, the staff report is made available seven days prior to the public hearing, 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 July 31, 2013. Staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), public agencies, and the affected neighborhood groups (Northeast Neighbors) on August 2, 2013. Staff also mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on August 1, 2013. On August 2, 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. As of the date of this report, two letters of opposition have been submitted by Khoi Tran and Donald H. Gudehus, Ph.D. Ms. Tran primarily opposes the increased traffic that would be generated from future development of the property. As indicated in this report, the proposed zone change is attempting to bring the zoning for these properties into alignment with the neighborhood plan which has anticipated this level of residential development for many years. In addition, the zone change is required to show that 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. Transportation facilities are considered a key urban service. The subject property has frontage on two public streets, Ayres Road and North Delta Highway, which can serve the uses and density that would be allowed by the proposed zoning. Improvements to those roadways will be evaluated as part of the subsequent development permit process. Dr. Gudehus objects to the potential impact on home values of his “fairly upclass neighborhood,” the potential loss of the golf course, contaminants associated with stormwater runoff, and increased traffic on North Delta Highway. While staff understand the concerns associated with the loss of a private golf course, the proposed rezoning is attempting to Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 2 HO Agenda - Page 9 conform to the longterm vision of the neighborhood plan, as discussed above. With regard to stormwater runoff, the City requires development to provide pollution reduction facilities as part of a stormwater management plan. With regard to North Delta Highway, roadway improvements will be evaluated as part of a development permit. 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 criteria required for approval, shown below in bold typeface. 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 Metro Plan designates the subject property, primarily, as Low‐Density Residential, with a portion of the property, at the northeast corner of North Delta Highway and Ayres Road, as Medium‐Density Residential (MDR). The subject property is currently zoned R‐1/SR Low‐Density Residential with Site Review Overlay, on the west side of North Delta Highway; on the east side of North Delta Highway, the subject property is zoned AG Agricultural. The applicant requests R‐1 Low‐Density Residential and R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential zoning on the east side of North Delta Highway; on the west side of North Delta Highway, the applicant proposes removal of the /SR Overlay. The applicant requests zonings that implement the plan designations. The applicant notes that the area designated Medium‐Density Residential (MDR) is approximately 15 acres, which is affirmed by the applicable refinement plan. (The subsequent approval criterion addresses this in detail.) The applicant states that they will “defer to the City as to its interpretation of its own plan maps about the exact location…” (See page 4 of the applicant’s July 1, 2013 written statement.) At the request of staff, the applicant subsequently submitted, on July 31, 2013, a vicinity map of the area of request (attached as Exhibit A). Overall, staff finds this map to be consistent with the plan designation, with regard to the area designated MDR. The applicant also submitted a supplemental narrative on July 26, 2013, addressing the relevant Metro Plan policies. Staff concurs with the applicant’s findings. Overall, the requested zone change corrects the existing plan/zone conflict and implements several plan policies. There are no Metro Plan policies that mandate the /SR overlay. The applicant’s justification for removal of the /SR overlay is detailed on pages 14 through 17 of the applicant’s written statement. Staff concurs with the applicant’s findings that there is no policy or code basis for the /SR overlay. Based on the above findings, staff finds that the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 3 HO Agenda - Page 10  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 (WAP). The WAP designates the subject property as Low‐Density Residential and Medium‐Density Residential, consistent with the applicant’s requested R‐1 and R‐2 zoning. Staff notes that the printed version of the WAP (dated 1992, a portion of which is included in the application materials as Exhibit I) identifies the westerly portion of the property as having a Parks and Open Space land use designation; however, this designation was incorrectly applied as part of the City’s “housekeeping” amendment package in 2004, which was corrected back to its former Low‐Density Residential designation by a City‐initiated Metro Plan amendment (MA 09‐3) that specifically included an automatic amendment to the WAP for consistency. The applicant partially addresses the relevant WAP policies on page 5 of their July 1, 2013 written statement; at staff’s request, the applicant provided a supplemental narrative on July 29, 2013, which thoroughly addresses the relevant WAP policies. The subject property is within the Unincorporated Subarea of the WAP. In the July 1 narrative, the applicant states that annexation of the property may make the Unincorporated Subarea policies inapplicable; staff disagrees, noting that this is a geographic boundary. Nevertheless, the applicant addresses the potentially relevant policies of the subarea. Most notably, in the July 1 narrative, the applicant cites Policy 13 to establish that the locations of the Low‐Density Residential (LDR) and Medium‐Density Residential (MDR) are general. Policy 13 reads as follows: Areas designated “Opportunity Area” on the Land Use Plan Diagram are intended to provide opportunities for residential/mixed‐use development. The plan diagram for these areas indicates general locations for low‐ and medium‐density residential, neighborhood commercial, and parks/open space uses. The City shall allow for consideration of a rearrangement of all land uses within the identified “Opportunity Areas.” This rearrangement shall be accomplished through the application of the zoning district created to implement the residential/mixed‐use concept. The intent of the district is to apply the generalized objectives contained in the section of this plan entitled “Discussion of Residential/Mixed‐Use Concept.” Based on the above policy, staff agrees with the applicant that the locations for the LDR and MDR designations on the subject property are general. As stated on page 5 of the applicant’s July 1 narrative, “At this juncture the applicant wishes to have the zoning match the plan designation, rather than invoking any flexibility to move the plan designations about…” The applicant is not seeking to “rearrange” the designations; hence a mixed use zoning district does not need to be created. Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 4 HO Agenda - Page 11 Policy 12 on page 59 of the WAP provides further guidance on implementing the mixed use concept through the application of overlay zones, which reads as follows: Upon annexation, the City shall apply the /PD Planned Unit Development zoning suffix, or other appropriate zoning designation suited to the creation of residential/mixed‐use developments, to those areas designated “Opportunity Area” on the Land Use Plan Diagram. The zoning district created to allow for the development of residential/mixed‐ use communities shall be applied only at the request of the property owner or contract purchaser of the property. In the July 29 narrative, the applicant states that the City could have applied an overlay zone at the time of annexation, but chose not to; in fact, the policy states that this “…shall be applied only at the request of the property owner…” During the annexation process, the owner was asked if they wanted an overlay zone to implement mixed‐use development. The owner clarified that they did not want the overlay zone applied. In the subject zone change, the applicant requests the removal of the existing /SR overlay, which is justified on pages 14 through 17 of the applicant’s written statement. Staff confirms that there is no WAP policy basis for an overlay zone in this instance. Staff acknowledges that the applicant is not seeking to rearrange the land use designations, and confirms that the proposed R‐2 zone, located at the northeast intersection of Ayres Road and North Delta Highway, is consistent with the MDR land use designation identified in the WAP. The adopting ordinance of the WAP confirms that the subject area is 15 acres (see Ordinance 19856, #21, page 3, included in the application file). Based on the above findings, and the applicant’s written statement, which is incorporated by reference, the zone change is consistent with the applicable 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). In order to annex the subject property, which was approved by the City Council on April 8, 2013, the applicant was required to demonstrate that key urban facilities and services could be provided to the subject property. The applicant submitted their annexation narrative as Exhibit C; services are detailed on pages 8 and 9. Referral comments included in the application file also confirm that the above approval criterion is met. Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 5 HO Agenda - Page 12  EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: Staff concurs with the applicant that there are no discrete siting requirements for the requested R‐1 and R‐2 zones at EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. The applicant has also addressed potentially applicable sections of the residential zone purpose statements, and development and lot standards (see pages 6 and 7 of the applicant’s July 1, 2013 written statement). Based on these findings, the above criterion is met. 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. Transportation Planning Rule: The applicant’s written statement (beginning on page 8) addresses several Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD); however, staff finds that only Goal 12 Transportation must be specifically addressed as part of the requested zone change and in the context of Oregon Administrative Rules, as follows. As adopted, OAR 660‐012‐0060(1) states: (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3),(9), or (10) of this rule. Staff agrees with the applicant that the subject zone change is governed by subsection (9), which reads as follows: (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: (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 6 HO Agenda - Page 13  (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. Staff concurs with the applicant’s findings on pages 11 and 12 of their July 1, 2013 written statement regarding compliance with the above. Staff confirms that the subject property is designated Low‐Density Residential and Medium‐Density Residential, consistent with the requested R‐1 and R‐2 zones, and that these designations were in effect at the time the acknowledged TSP was adopted (TransPlan 2002). Staff notes that the 2004 and 2008 Metro Plan amendments, the timeframe in which a portion of the property was (incorrectly) designated Parks and Open Space, occurred after the TSP adoption and therefore, did not change the original assumptions. Based on the above findings, 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. 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‐1 Low‐Density Residential and R‐ 2 Medium Density Residential. 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. Attachments A vicinity map is attached. The entire application file is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing. These materials will also be made available for review at the public hearing. For More Information: Please contact Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682‐ 5437; or by e‐mail, at: becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us Jeffries (Z 13‐5) August 2013 7 HO Agenda - Page 14 HO Agenda - Page 15