Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Sloat Room -- Atrium Building 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 10, 2014 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Jane J. Daniels Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) Assessors Map: 17-03-08-00 Tax Lot: 7600, 7601, 7602 Assessors Map: 17-03-08-31 Tax Lot: 1500 Location: 3825 Gilham Road Request: Zone change from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low Density Residential Applicant: Jane J. Daniels Lathen Trust by David E. Daniels, Trustee Applicant’s Representative: Anthony Favreau, The Favreau Group Lead City Staff: Rebekah Dohrman, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5317 E-mail: rebekah.l.dohrman@ci.eugene.or.us II. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Van Slyke, John and Payung (Z 14-5) Assessors Map: 17-03-09-24 Tax Lot: 500 Location: 4010 County Farm Road Request: Zone change from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to GO General Office Applicant: John and Payung Van Slyke Applicant’s Representative: Kim O'Dea, 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 neutral parties. 4. Testimony from appellants and others 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 LATHEN TRUST (Z 14-4) Applicant/File Name (Numbers): Jane J. Daniels Lathen Trust by David E. Daniels, Trustee (Z 14-4) Applicant’s Representative: Anthony Favreau, The Favreau Group, (541) 683-7048 Applicant’s Request: To rezone the subject property from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential Subject Property/Location: 3825 Gilham Road (approximately 10.15 acres); Tax Lots 7600, 7601, and 7602 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-08-00 and Tax Lot 1500 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-08-31; See attached vicinity map. Relevant Dates: Application submitted on May 27, 2014; application deemed complete on July 30, 2014; public hearing scheduled for September 10, 2014 Lead City Staff: Rebekah Dohrman, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, (541) 682-5317 ______________________________________________________________________________ Background and Present Request The present request is to rezone the subject property, which consists of approximately 10.15 acres of land located at 3825 Gilham Road, from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential. The property is currently developed with one single-family home which is currently vacant. On July 28, 2014, City Council approved annexation of the subject property (City file: A 14-3). No other land use decisions have been issued for the subject property. The property is located east of Gilham Road at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gilham Road and Nelson Lane. The property is located near areas zoned R-1/UL Low-Density Residential with Urbanizable Land overlay zone, indicating that these areas are not within the City limits. These areas are developed with single-family homes. The subject property is also Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 located next to an area zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential that is part of the City limits and is developed with single-family residences. At the northeast corner and along the east boundary line, the property abuts the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The area located adjacent to the property and outside of the UGB is owned by a sand and gravel extraction operation. The area to the north of the subject property is zoned AG/UL Agricultural with Urbanizable Land overlay zone. The Eugene Code (EC) requires City staff to prepare a written report concerning the subject land use application. 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 30, 2014. On August 11, 2014, staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), public agencies, and the affected neighborhood group (Northeast Neighbors). On August 5, 2014, staff also mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). On August 4, 2014, staff mailed public notice of the proposed zone change and the hearing date to owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. In response to an invitation to attend a neighborhood/applicant meeting related to future development of the subject property, Randall Hledik of Wildish Companies, the sand and gravel operation located east of the subject property, sent an informational email to the applicant’s representative. In that email, Mr. Hledik explains that sand and gravel extraction and processing occurs to the east, northwest, and northeast of the subject property. Mr. Hledik does not anticipate that the sand and gravel operation will impact the subject property; however, as a precaution, he asks applicant’s representative to take that possibility into consideration when designing the future development. Mr. Hledik also asks the applicant’s representative to consider additional fencing or other features to discourage trespass onto the sand and gravel operation’s property. No other comments related to the zone change application were received. Staff Analysis EC 9.7330 and 9.8865 require 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. Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 2 HO Agenda - Page 2  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 proposed zone change is from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential. The adopted Metro Plan diagram is at a metropolitan scale (1”= 7,000’) and is not parcel specific in this case. The configuration of the subject property and the physical references of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and Gilham Road make it clear that the subject property is designated Low- Density Residential. The location of the UGB was precisely determined as part of the recent annexation of the subject property (City file: A 14-3). The property is currently zoned AG Agricultural, which is inconsistent with the plan designation. The requested zone change to R-1 Low-Density Residential will bring the property into compliance with the plan designation. The applicant asserts that the proposed zone change is consistent with the Metro Plan and the Economic Element policies of the Metro Plan. Specifically, the applicant states that the zone change would facilitate the efficient use of the entire property, increase economic activity, and optimize the utilization of existing facilities. While it does not appear that the Economic Element policies are directly applicable to the proposed zone change, staff concurs with applicant that there is no apparent conflict between the policy direction provided and the requested zone change. In regards to Metro Plan policies, the following appears to be relevant: 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. Although the policy does not read as a mandatory approval criterion for the zone change, the applicant’s requested zoning fulfills this policy. Based on the above findings, 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 Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) is the adopted refinement plan applicable to this request. The subject site is identified on the WAP Land Use Diagram and the Unincorporated Subarea Diagram. On both diagrams, the subject site is designated for low-density residential use which is consistent with applicant’s zone change request. Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 The applicant addresses the following residential plan area policies on pages 1-2 of the written statement: WAP Residential Policy 1: Maintain the existing low-density residential character of existing Willakenzie neighborhoods, while recognizing the need to provide housing for all income groups in the city. WAP Residential Policy 3: Ensure that development plans include street sizes adequate to meet future demands. In a supplemental written statement, the applicant also addresses the following subarea plan policy: WAP Unincorporated Subarea Policy 2: The City shall require future developments on parcels abutting the UGB to provide an effective transition between urban and rural land uses. This transition is intended to minimize potential conflicts with adjacent agricultural and sand and gravel operations. The applicant asserts that development on the subject site will fulfill the first two policies. Development is defined in Eugene Code as: “The act, process or result of developing. As used in sections 9.6705 to 9.6709, any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard.” Based on this definition, staff is unable to concur with the applicant’s assertion because development of the site is not proposed as part of this zone change application. Regardless, WAP Residential Policies 1 and 3 are aspirational and do not apply to the proposed zone change request as mandatory approval criteria. With respect to WAP Unincorporated Subarea Policy 2, this subarea policy is mandatory and applicable to the subject property because the property abuts the UGB along its east/northeastern boundary lines. In supplemental written materials, the applicant asserts that existing conditions on adjacent property provide an effective transition between the low- density residential use and the rural/sand and gravel operations. Specifically, the applicant’s supplemental written statements indicate that adjacent properties include the following features: a six-foot high chain link fence, a six- to eight-foot high dike around a pond, and vegetation planted along the west bank of the dike. These items are all related to the sand and gravel operation which is located east and northeast of the property and beyond the UGB. Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 4 HO Agenda - Page 4 Along the north boundary line, the applicant indicates that a row of evergreen trees is located approximately ten to fifteen feet north of the property’s north boundary line. The property to the north is developed with a single-family home. Staff acknowledges that these existing features appear to provide a transition between the property and the uses located beyond the UGB. Nevertheless, staff reads the subarea policy to require that the effective transition be created by the future development. In other words, the policy does not allow the applicant to rely on existing features located on adjacent properties to satisfy this mandatory subarea policy. To ensure that an effective transition is created by future development on the subject site, staff recommends imposition of the /SR Site Review Overlay Zone (/SR Overlay). To support this recommendation, staff turns to the following general plan area policies: WAP Land Use Policy 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. WAP Land Use Policy 5: Site review procedures or special development standards shall be considered for properties which abut or face one another, when the uses permitted on those properties are potentially incompatible. WAP Land Use Policy 6: Minimize land use conflict by promoting compatibility between low-density and higher-density residential land uses as well as between residential and nonresidential land uses. Overlay zones are intended to provide special regulations and standards that supplement the base zone and special area zone regulations and standards. (See EC 9.400.) The purpose of the /SR Overlay is to maintain or improve the character, integrity, and harmonious development of an area and provide a safe, stable, efficient, and attractive on-site environment. (See EC 9.4400.) Changes in zoning can include the designation of an overlay zone in addition to the base zone. While some overlay zones have been applied to a specific geographic area through a land use code amendment, other overlay zones are applied on a case by case basis. In these cases, the overlay zone can be applied in response to adopted plan policies or where the use of the overlay zone is necessary to address future development considerations. (See EC 9.8860(2).) Staff acknowledges that the most likely future development of the subject site will be a single- family subdivision. Further, staff acknowledges that through approval criteria a tentative subdivision application will be subject to the mandatory subarea policy referenced above. (See EC 9.8515(4); 9.9700(1)(e); 9.9700(9)(a).) Nevertheless, staff must apply the zone change criteria to the current application and may not defer satisfaction of mandatory policies to later land use applications. Therefore, to meet the mandatory WAP Unincorporated Subarea Policy 2, it is appropriate for staff to recommend imposition of the /SR Overlay. The /SR Overlay will Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 5 HO Agenda - Page 5 ensure that future development will provide an effective transition between the subject site and uses beyond the UGB. Staff recommends that the Hearings Official determine that the /SR Overlay is an appropriate tool to address the question of compatibility and effective transition between different uses. Otherwise, based on the above findings, and the applicant’s written statement, which is incorporated by reference, the proposed 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 were evaluated as part of the recent annexation of the subject property, which confirmed that wastewater, stormwater, streets, solid waste, water and electric, public safety, parks and recreation, planning and development services, communications, and public schools could be provided in an orderly efficient and timely manner. Exhibit C of the City Council Resolution approving the annexation is included in the application file for detailed findings about urban facilities and services. Notably, wastewater service to the site requires an extension of the public system. At the time of annexation, the applicant acknowledged that they are responsible for the associated costs of providing the wastewater service. Also, public stormwater is not available to serve the subject property. At the time of annexation, the applicant confirmed that future development of the subject site would include onsite stormwater management facilities. This type of stormwater management is preferred by the City’s stormwater development standards and will be reviewed for compliance during the development permit process. Based on these findings, the uses and densities that will be allowed in the proposed R-1 zone can be served consistent with the above criterion. 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. There are no discrete siting requirements for the requested R-1 zone at EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. Based on these findings, the above criterion is met. Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 6 HO Agenda - Page 6  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: Staff finds that Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD), must be specifically addressed as part of the requested zone change and in the context of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), 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 finds 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 (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 confirms that the proposed R-1 zoning for the property is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation as Low-Density Residential, and that this designation was in effect at the time the acknowledged TSP was adopted (TransPlan 2002). When TransPlan was adopted, the subject property was designated Low-Density Residential and has remained unchanged. The subject property was not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth boundary agreement. Thus, OAR 660-012-0060(9) is satisfied. Based on these findings, Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 7 HO Agenda - Page 7 the proposed zone change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR and therefore complies with the TPR. 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 with /SR 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. 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 Rebekah Dohrman, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5317; or by e-mail, at: Rebekah.L.Dohrman@ci.eugene.or.us Lathen Trust (Z 14-4) September 2014 8 HO Agenda - Page 8  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 VAN SLYKE, JOHN & PAYUNG (Z 14-5) Applicant/File Name (Numbers): Van Slyke, John and Payung (Z 14-5) Applicant’s Representative: Kim O’Dea, Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC Applicant’s Request: To rezone the subject property from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to GO General Office Subject Property Location: Located at 4010 County Farm Road, on the north side of County Farm road, northwest of Coburg Road and North Game Farm Road intersection; Tax Lot 500 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-09- 24; approximately 4.85 acres (See attached vicinity map.) Relevant Dates: Application submitted on June 25, 2014; deemed complete on July 30, 2014; public hearing scheduled for September 10, 2014 Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5437. Background and Present Request The present request is to rezone the subject property, which consists of 4.85 acres of land located at 4010 County Farm Road, from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to GO General Office. The property is currently developed with a house and accessory structures. The applicant states that these structures have been in commercial use in the past, including Coburg Koi and Garden, Towne and Country Store, wedding events associated with the Country Inn (next door) and a candy store. The older house on the subject property has been used for residential purposes. Both buildings are currently vacant. Annexation of the subject property was approved by the City Council on July 28, 2014 (City file A 14-2). The annexation also determined the urban growth boundary (UGB) to be coterminous with City limits along the north and northwest boundaries of the subject property. Hence, lands to the north and northwest are outside City limits and the UGB. Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 1 HO Agenda - Page 10 Other than the Country Inn property to the east, the surrounding properties are primarily undeveloped. Adjacent undeveloped lands to the southwest are currently zoned agricultural and are outside city limits, but within the UGB and designated for medium-density residential uses. To the south, the subject property abuts County Farm Road; the roadway and adjacent lands to the south are currently within City limits and consist of 13 acres of undeveloped land that is zoned medium-density residential and approximately four acres of undeveloped land that is zoned community commercial. 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 30, 2014. Staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), public agencies, and the affected neighborhood group (Santa Clara Community Organization) on August 11, 2014. Staff also mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on August 5, 2014. On August 4, 2014, 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. Any comments received between the date of this report and the public hearing will be forwarded to the Hearings Official. 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 proposed zone change is from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to GO General Office. The adopted Metro Plan diagram (provided in Exhibit D of the applicant’s statement) is at a metropolitan scale (1” = 7,000’) and is not parcel-specific in this case. The configuration of the subject property and the physical references of the UGB and County Farm Road make it clear Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 2 HO Agenda - Page 11 that the subject property is designated Commercial. The location of the UGB was precisely determined as part of the recent annexation of the subject property (City file A 14-2). With regard to the existing C-1 zoning of the subject property, the Metro Plan text (page II-G-4) explains how Neighborhood Commercial is not shown on the Metro Plan diagram and provides minimum location standards and site criteria. As such, subject to those siting criteria, C-1 zoning could be applied to a property regardless of its plan designation. Therefore, the Commercial designation of the subject property in the Metro Plan makes it potentially eligible for Community Commercial zoning. The applicant requests GO General Office zoning, which is one of four commercial zoning categories provided in Eugene Code that align with the Metro Plan’s Commercial designation of the subject property. In addition to the GO zone being consistent with the Commercial designation, staff agrees with the applicant that the subject property is particularly suited for the GO zone, which is designed to be in transitional locations between residential and commercial uses. The property is located between lands designated Medium Density Residential to the west and Commercial to the east. Staff also agrees with the applicant about there being no Metro Plan policies specific to the subject property or requested zone change that would otherwise serve as mandatory approval criteria. Based on these findings, 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 Refinement Plan (WAP). The WAP is parcel-specific in this case and designates the subject property as Commercial. As discussed previously, the requested GO zone is consistent with the Commercial designation. The applicant responds to several General Policies of the WAP in their supplemental written statement dated July 25, 2014. Staff finds General Policies 2 and 5 to be relevant in this case; both involve consideration of the /SR Site Review overlay zone, as discussed below. General Policies and Proposed Actions 2. The City shall ensure that future commercial development and redevelopment in the Willakenzie planning area is sensitive to and compatible with existing and planned development in the surrounding area. 2.1 Amend the Eugene Code to ensure that commercial developments are attractive, compatible with surrounding land uses, and reflect recommendations in the Willakenzie Plan, the Commercial Lands Study, and other design studies. Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 3 HO Agenda - Page 12  2.2 Apply the /SR Site Review suffix to all parcels zoned or designated for C-1 Neighborhood Commercial or C-2 General Commercial development in the Willakenzie planning area, using the Willakenzie Commercial Siting and Development Guidelines as the review criteria. These guidelines will be used to evaluate commercial development and redevelopment proposals until such time as the City adopts citywide commercial development standards or guidelines. General Policy 2 directs the City to “ensure that future commercial development and redevelopment in the Willakenzie planning area is sensitive to and compatible with existing and planned development in the surrounding area.” The requested zone change from C-1 to GO would allow commercial development or redevelopment on the subject property. A review of EC Table 9.2160 Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements shows that the C-1 and GO zones have similar allowances; the noticeable differences being the greater allowances for retail trade in the C-1 zone and the additional lodging and medical service uses allowed in the GO zone. Although not adopted as policy, the Proposed Actions provide direction for implementing the policy. The City has implemented Action 2.1 through code amendments that have established development standards for commercial development that include building articulation and landscaping. In response to Action 2.2, the applicant merely states that this does not apply because the requested zone is GO. By itself, Action 2.2 may not mandate /SR overlay, but there are additional polices, as discussed below, that support the application of site review and the above policy and proposed actions provide relevant context. 5. Site review procedures or special development standards shall be considered for properties which abut or face one another, when the uses permitted on those properties are potentially incompatible. Absent code provisions that would enable the creation of special development standards, site review procedures are the tool to address compatibility. In considering whether site review procedures are necessary, General Policy 5 calls for an analysis of permitted uses that would be potentially incompatible on properties abutting or facing the subject property. Adjacent lands to the north are outside the UGB and are in agricultural use. Adjacent lands to the east are designated Commercial and are in commercial use. Adjacent lands to the west are designed Medium Density Residential; although the property is currently vacant and in agricultural use, its plan designation could result in future multiple family development. Rather than C-2 zoning, the applicant requests GO, which “…is designed to…allow a compatible mix of office and residential development…in transitional locations between residential and commercial uses…This zone also encourages a compatible mix of dwellings and offices on the same or adjacent properties.” (See EC 9.2140 Purpose of General Office Zone.) As such, the GO Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 4 HO Agenda - Page 13 zone is an appropriate commercial zone between the commercial development to the east and the planned medium-density residential lands to the west. The “facing” properties, on the south side of County Farm Road are currently vacant, but are zoned R-2/SR Medium-Density Residential with the Site Review overlay and C-2/SR Community Commercial with the Site Review overlay. Notably, the properties to the south include the /SR overlay zone, which was applied as part of a zone change that occurred in 2006 (City file Z 06- 20). In that 2006 case, the applicant proposed the /SR overlay as a means of complying with the above General Policies 2 and 5. Given that the applicant proposed the /SR overlay, the 2006 case does not debate the authority of these policies to require site review; nevertheless, it establishes a pattern of applying /SR to commercial zone changes in the vicinity. Another case to reference when considering the weight of the WAP General Policies pertaining to compatibility and the application of site review is the Benson zone change (Z 13-2). In that case, staff recommended applying the /SR overlay to a requested zone change from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential, based on the directives of General Policy 8 and Action 8.1. The Hearings Official rejected that recommendation, but on appeal, the Planning Commission modified the HO decision to add the /SR overlay. The PC found that “Although Proposed Actions are not city council adopted policy, they are recommended actions that are available to achieve the stated policy…” and noted the forceful language of the action calling for site review. In their supplemental findings, the PC referred to Policy 5 as well, to establish a policy direction in favor of applying the /SR overlay to address compatibility in the WAP area. Even if General Policies 2 and 5 alone do not mandate /SR overlay to the proposed GO zone, they provide context for the following subarea policies that raise additional concerns. The WAP subarea applicable to the subject property is the North Region – Unincorporated Subarea. The applicant’s initial written statement (dated June 25, 2014) provides an itemized response to the relevant subarea policies. Staff finds Subarea Policies 2 and 10 to be directly relevant to the subject request. North Region – Unincorporated Subarea 2. The City shall require future developments on parcels abutting the UGB to provide an effective transition between urban and rural land uses. This transition is intended to minimize potential conflicts with adjacent agricultural and sand and gravel operations. The UGB abuts the north property line and adjacent lands to the north appear to be in agricultural use. Although the requested GO zone is designed to provide a transition between commercial and medium density residential development, it does not directly address compatibility concerns with agricultural uses. As such, an effective transition tool would be the application of a /SR overlay, which includes compatibility criteria. Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 5 HO Agenda - Page 14  10. The City shall recognize the existing neighborhood commercial zoning at the northwest corner of County Farm Road and Coburg Road and shall discourage future commercial rezonings in the immediate area. The applicant responds to this policy by asserting that it is directed at the rezoning of non- commercially zoned properties to commercial. This assertion is debatable; nevertheless, the policy itself would not prevent a commercial rezoning of the subject property, given the Commercial designation provided by the Metro Plan, which controls in the event of inconsistencies. The term “discourage” also makes the above policy read as aspirational rather than mandatory. The applicant also asserts that this policy is specific to time, stating that because the WAP was adopted over 20 years ago the limitation on future commercial rezonings is no longer applicable. Staff disagrees with this interpretation as there was no timeframe associated with the term “future.” If anything, the policy appears to be acknowledging the existing commercial zoning, but wanting to limit expansions of that zoning; meaning, not increasing the intensity of commercial uses in the area. The requested GO zone has less intense commercial uses than the C-2 zone; hence it is better aligned with this policy. The intensity of development on the subject property could be further mitigated by context-sensitive design, which would be afforded by the site review procedures; thus, this policy helps support the application of the /SR overlay. Based on the above findings, staff recommends the application of the /SR overlay as a means of complying with the Willakenzie Area Plan policies. 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 were evaluated as part of the recent annexation of the subject property, which confirmed that wastewater, stormwater, streets, solid waste, water and electric, public safety, parks and recreation, planning and development services, communications, and public schools could be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Exhibit C of the City Council Resolution approving the annexation is included in the application file for detailed findings about urban facilities and services. Notably, wastewater service to the site requires an extension of the public system. At the time of annexation, the applicant’s engineer prepared a conceptual wastewater service plan that was acceptable to Public Works staff. The applicant also acknowledged that they are responsible for the associated costs of providing the wastewater service. Based on these findings, the uses and densities that will be allowed in the proposed GO zone can be served consistent with the above criterion. EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 6 HO Agenda - Page 15 This criterion lists no specific siting requirements for the GO zone. The Commercial Zone Siting Requirements at EC 9.2150 are specific to the C-1 zone. As such, nothing further is required by this criterion. 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: Staff finds that Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD), 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 finds 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 (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 confirms that the proposed GO zoning for the property is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation as Commercial, and that this designation was in effect at the time the acknowledged TSP was adopted (TransPlan 2002). When TransPlan was adopted in 2001, the subject property was designated Commercial and has remained unchanged. The subject property was not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth boundary Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 7 HO Agenda - Page 16 agreement. Thus, OAR 660-012-0060(9) is satisfied. Based on these findings, the proposed zone change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR and therefore complies with the TPR. Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to GO General Office, but with the /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. 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 Van Slyke (Z 14-5) September 2014 8 HO Agenda - Page 17