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, JANUARY 28, 2015 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING Summit Bank (Z 14-7) Assessors Map: 17-04-33-30 Tax Lot: 200 Location: Willow Creek and West 11th Request: Zone change from I-2 Light-Medium Industrial to E-2 Mixed Use Employment Applicant: Summit Bank Applicant’s Representative: Kristen Taylor, TBG Architects Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5697 E-mail: gabriel.flock@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 opponents. 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 SUMMIT BANK (Z 14-7) Applicant/File Name (Numbers): Mary Merriman for Summit Bank (Z 14-7) Applicant’s Representative: Kristen Taylor, TBG Architects & Planners Applicant’s Request: To rezone the subject property from I-2 Light-Medium Industrial to E-2 Mixed-Use Employment zone Subject Property: Tax Lot 200 of Assessor’s Map 17-04-33-30, which is a vacant 6.73-acre parcel located on the south side of West 11th Avenue, west of Willow Creek Road Relevant Dates: Application submitted on September 2, 2014; application deemed complete on December 3, 2014; public hearing scheduled for January 28, 2015. Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5697. Background and Present Request The present request is zone change approval for a parcel owned by Summit Bank. The property is located on the south side of West 11th Avenue, west of Willow Creek and east of Renee Street. The applicant requests a zone change for their property from the current Light-Medium Industrial (I-2) to a Mixed-Use Employment (E-2) zone. As part of the City’s Envision Eugene process for making better use of its industrial lands, the City created new industrial zoning classifications (E-1 and E-2) and applied these zonings to a number of properties in the Chad Drive and West 11th Avenue areas. The E zones were determined to be consistent with the industrial land use designations; as such, no plan amendments were required. The City’s implementation process included the required Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis, which generally concluded that the increased allowance of retail uses resulted in an overall increase in trip generation. As such, the HO Agenda - Page 1 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 1 City established trip caps to the rezoned properties; however, the trip caps will automatically be removed upon adoption of the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is in the process of being updated and will account for these E zones. It is important to note that, since the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) were amended to include an exception for zone changes consistent with the assumptions of the adopted TSP, the City has granted exceptions to zone changes when the proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the land use designation that was in effect at the time the TSP was adopted. In this case, the proposed E-2 zone is consistent with the Industrial designation that was in effect at the time the TSP was adopted (TransPlan). However, the nuance in this case that requires a TPR analysis is that the TSP assumptions of the industrial designation did not include the additional E zone allowances and associated increase in trip generation. As noted previously, the TSP is in the process of being updated and will account for the E zones. The applicant’s materials include a TPR analysis prepared by Kelly Sandow, Sandow Engineering. The staff response to the TPR analysis is provided below, following the evaluation of the zone change approval criteria. In summary, the comparison of trips between existing and proposed zonings results in an increase that has a significant effect on the transportation system. As such, the applicant requests a trip cap, which is supported by staff as being consistent with the City’s approach to its rezoning process. However, the applicant also proposes mitigation to increase the trip cap above existing zoning conditions. As of the date of this report, City and State (ODOT) staff is not supportive of the applicant’s proposed mitigation scenario. 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 On December 4, 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 (West Eugene Community Organization). Referral comments were received from ODOT and the City’s Public Works Department. The neighborhood did not respond. Staff mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December 5, 2014. DLCD staff initially responded that a plan amendment would be required, before they learned more about the City’s process and determination that the E-2 zone is consistent with the Industrial land use designation. HO Agenda - Page 2 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 2 On December 23, 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 written public testimony has been received. Staff Analysis The Eugene Code, at EC 9.7330 and EC 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 as Light-Medium Industrial. The existing I-2 zoning is consistent with this designation, as is the proposed E-2 zone. The applicant’s written statement responds to several relevant Metro Plan policies, although staff finds none to be mandatory approval criteria. Overall, the policy analysis shows how the E-2 zone furthers several economic policies directed at local government. (See pages 4 and 5 of the applicant’s written statement.) Based on these findings, this criterion is met. 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 Willow Creek Special Area Study (WCSAS) is the applicable adopted refinement plan for the area of the proposed zone change. The WCSAS designates the subject property as Light- Medium Industrial. Both the existing I-2 zoning and the proposed E-2 zoning are consistent with this industrial designation. The applicant’s written statement responds to the relevant WCSAS policies, although staff finds none to be mandatory approval criteria. Overall, the policy analysis shows how the E-2 zone furthers some policies that encourage improved amenities for alternative modes of transportation. (See pages 6 and 7 of the applicant’s written statement.) Based on these findings, this criterion is met. 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 E-2 zone on the subject property can be serviced through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Based on these findings, this criterion is met. HO Agenda - Page 3 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 3  EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (b) EC 9.2430 Employment and Industrial Zone Siting Requirements. (2) E-2 Mixed-Use Employment. This zone is limited to areas designated Light- Medium Industrial in the Metro Plan and those that meet either (a) or (b) of the following minimum siting requirements: (a) Property has frontage on an arterial street. (b) Contiguous to parcels currently zoned E-2 or C-2 Community Commercial. As confirmed previously above at EC 9.8865(1), the subject property is designated Light- Medium Industrial in the Metro Plan. The subject property has frontage on West 11th Avenue, which is classified as a major arterial street. Based on these findings, the above siting requirements and this criterion are 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: 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. The City’s acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is TransPlan, which was adopted in 2001 and provides the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan. Both plans (TransPlan and Metro Plan) serve both the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. The passage of House Bill 3337, in 2006, required the cities to establish separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB); as such, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires separate TSPs. The City of Springfield has since established a separate UGB and adopted a separate TSP. The City of Eugene is in the process of establishing a separate UGB and developing a separate TSP in coordination with the City’s Envision Eugene process for determining the City’s housing and employment needs over the next 20 years. HO Agenda - Page 4 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 4 Until the new TSP is adopted, the City relies on the 2001 TransPlan when evaluating zone changes for consistency with the TPR. In most cases, the City finds zone changes to be consistent with TPR if the proposed zoning is consistent with the planned designation that was in effect at the time TSP was adopted (i.e. on or before adoption in 2001), pursuant to OAR 660- 012-0060(9). Zone changes implementing land use designations that were amended after 2001 have been required to evaluate whether the projected increase in traffic from uses allowed by the proposed zoning would have a significant effect on the transportation system. In those cases, a trip cap, limiting traffic generation to the PM Peak (because that is the peak hour assumption under TransPlan) allowance under the existing zoning, considering the reasonable worst-case scenario for trip generation, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) land use categories that align with the uses allowed by the zoning code. As part of the City’s Envision Eugene process for making better use of its industrial lands, the City created new industrial zoning classifications (E-1 and E-2) and applied these zonings to several properties in the vicinity of the subject property. At that time, the property owner did not want to be included in the City’s process. The E zones were determined to be consistent with the industrial land use designations; as such, no plan amendments were required. The City’s implementation process included the required TPR analysis, which generally concluded that the increased allowance of retail uses resulted in an overall increase in trip generation. As such, the City established trip caps to the rezoned properties; however, the trip caps will automatically be removed upon adoption of the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is in the process of being updated and will account for these E zones. In this case, even though the proposed E-2 zone is consistent with the Industrial land use designation that was in effect when TransPlan was adopted, the zone change does not meet the “no significant effect” allowance of OAR 660-012-0060(9), which 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. Subsection (b) above is not met because the wider range of retail uses (and the related increase in trip generation) of the proposed E-2 zone was not accounted for in TransPlan, but will be included in the assumptions for the City’s pending TSP. HO Agenda - Page 5 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 5 The applicant’s materials include a TPR analysis prepared by Kelly Sandow, Sandow Engineering. In summary, the comparison of trips between existing and proposed zonings results in an increase that has a significant effect on the transportation system. The applicant requests a combined measure of mitigation and a trip cap (above existing zoning); in anticipation that the proposed mitigation would be unacceptable to the City and ODOT, the applicant secondarily proposes a cap with a lower trip generation (at existing zoning). The trip cap at existing zoning is supported by staff, as being consistent with the City’s approach to its rezoning process. As of the date of this report, City and State (ODOT) staff is not supportive of the applicant’s proposed mitigation scenario. The development potential under the proposed zoning has an estimated trip generation of 814 p.m. peak trips (refer to the table provided on page 16 of the applicant’s TPR analysis). The existing zoning trip generation is 630 p.m. peak trips (refer to the table provided on page 15 of the applicant’s TPR analysis). Staff confirms that the ITE categories selected by the applicant’s engineer align with the use allowances of the City’s zoning code. During the completeness review process, the City met with the applicant’s team about the use correlation, which resulted in a refined assumption set. For example, the development assumption includes two manufacturers on the subject property, each with secondary retail trade allowances for products manufactured on the site. Other factors refined with the applicant were the assumptions regarding building, landscaping, and vehicle use areas to better align with the ITE data that bases trip generation on gross floor area of uses. The applicant’s analysis shows that the trip generation of the proposed zoning impacts the transportation facilities within the study area below mobility standards, which are Level-of- Service (LOS) “D” for the City and volume-to-capacity-ratio (v/c) 0.80 for the State. The study intersections include West 11th Avenue at Willow Creek Road, and West 11th Avenue at Beltline. The applicant consulted both the City of Eugene and ODOT in determining the scope of the study area. (Initially, Public Works staff thought the intersections were under the City’s jurisdiction, but later confirmed that they are under ODOT’s jurisdiction; hence the applicant’s analysis includes both measurements.) The results of the intersection performance study are provided on page 26 of the applicant’s TPR analysis. It shows that the intersections will operate below adopted mobility standards under existing and proposed zoning at the required planning horizon year (20 years for ODOT facilities). For facilities that are failing under existing conditions, TPR requires mitigation such that the proposed conditions do not make it worse. The applicant’s findings show that the proposed zoning worsens the delay time in the level of service. The applicant proposes two mitigation options to reduce the impact of the E-2 zoning on the transportation system. The first is to provide physical improvements to the intersections to improve their performance; these are detailed on page 30 of the applicant’s TPR analysis, but are summarized with staff’s response below. For the intersection at Willow Creek and West 11th Avenue, the applicant’s mitigation recommendations include two options: constructing a westbound right turn pocket at Willow Creek and West 11th Avenue or revise the “left turn phasing to protective-permissive phasing.” HO Agenda - Page 6 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 6 For the first option, there is not enough information to confirm feasibility or how and when the turn pocket would be installed (i.e., whether there is currently sufficient right-of-way or when the applicant would construct this improvement and whether it would be completely at their expense). The phasing changes recommended by the applicant’s engineer are basically signal timing changes, which are not considered acceptable physical mitigation as confirmed in referral comments from Public Works staff. For the intersection at West 11th Avenue and Beltline, the applicant’s recommended mitigation is to modify the southbound approach lane assignments. Staff has the same concerns regarding the existing roadway geometry and the timing and funding commitments. Overall, staff concludes that the most realistic and effective mitigation is a trip cap to the existing I-2 zoning trip generation. As discussed previously, the reasonable worst case scenario trip generation under the I-2 zoning is 630 p.m. peak trips. The applicant’s analysis, however, proposes different trip caps. On page 31 of the applicant’s TPR analysis, the applicant states: “A trip cap of 611 PM peak hour trips would result in no increase in traffic over the existing zoning, thus satisfying the TPR requirements.” Given this statement, and that it is lower than the reasonable worst case assumption, 611 p.m. peak trips seems to be the appropriate trip cap. The applicant proposes yet another trip cap, assuming some signal timing changes can be made. As of the date of this report, these changes have not been fully vetted by the affected jurisdictions and are generally not supported. There could be unintended consequences to other parts of the system. Staff informed the applicant during the completeness review process that the most comfortable mitigation strategy is a trip cap to existing zoning conditions. The applicant expressed a desire for mitigation to increase that cap, but indicated that they could live with the trip cap preferred by staff. Moreover, both parties recognize that the trip cap will be lifted when the TSP is adopted because it will account for the E-2 zone. Another option, as utilized in other similar cases (e.g. Lane Memorial Gardens, City File MA 08-1, Ord. 20456), would be to provide an alternative process by which the applicant could potentially demonstrate that conditions have changed or with more detail and coordination regarding physical traffic mitigation, show compliance with TPR and related OARs. Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to E-2 Mixed-Use Employment, with the following condition of approval: • Development on the subject site is limited to a maximum of 611 p.m. peak hour trips, based on the Trip Generation Manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This trip cap will be automatically lifted upon adoption of the City’s updated TSP, so long as the updated TSP includes level of service changes or other mitigation sufficient to eliminate the need for the trip cap under OAR 660-12-0060. Alternatively, the City may allow development intensity beyond this maximum number of peak hour HO Agenda - Page 7 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 7  vehicle trips if the applicant submits an analysis to the City and ODOT (subject to the Type II land use application procedures) demonstrating that the intensification of use would be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-12-0060, through the provision of other acceptable mitigation measures. 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 Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5697; or by e-mail, at: gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us HO Agenda - Page 8 Summit Bank (Z 14-7) January 2015 8  Summit Bank (Z 14-7) TERRY ST ISABELLE ST S DANEBO AVE W 11TH AVE Area of Request RENNE ST BARB ARA WILLOW CREEK RD LN WESTEC DR Caution: ´ This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Ft 0 137.5 275 550 December HO 03,Agenda 2014 - Page 9