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 23, 2015 (5:00 p.m.) I. Murry, Ross (Z 15-6) Assessors Map: 17-04-34-14 Tax Lot: 200 Location: 3750 Stewart Road Request: Zone change from R-1 Low Density Residential to E-2 Mixed Use Employment. Applicant: Ross Murry Representative: Robert Stevens, Metro Planning Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail:erik.berg@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 Applicant/File Name (Number): Murry, Ross (Z 15-6) Applicant’s Representative: Robert Stevens, Metro Planning; 541-302-9830 Applicant’s Request: Rezone subject property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to E-2 Mixed Use Employment Subject Property: Tax Lot 200 of Assessor’s Map 17-04-34-14; Located at 3750 Stewart Road Relevant Dates: Application submitted on June 9, 2015; application deemed complete on August 12, 2015; public hearing scheduled for September 23, 2015. Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5437 Background 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 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 Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 1 PC Agenda - Page 1 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 letter completed by Sandow Engineering indicating the applicant’s intent to implement a traffic “trip cap.” This letter satisfies the requirement to provide a TPR analysis as part of the zone change proposal. 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. Present Request The present request is zone change approval from the current Low-Density Residential (R-1) to a Mixed Use Employment (E-2) zone. The 1.79 acre property is within the West Eugene Community Organization neighborhood, and is located at 3750 Stewart Road near the intersection of Stewart and Bailey Hill Roads. The property exists just north of the West 11th Avenue commercial corridor approximately 600 feet west of Lowe’s home improvement store. As discussed in the following evaluation, the Metro Plan diagram designates the subject property as “Light Medium Industrial.” Both E-2 and I-2 zones implement this plan designation. 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 On August 18, 2015, 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 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 August 12, 2015. On August 21, 2015, staff also mailed public notice of the proposed zone change and the hearing date to owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. Written public testimony has been received from neighbors Jeff and Jen Williamson, who live next door to the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Williamson state that they have opposed other Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 2 PC Agenda - Page 2 development proposals near their home in the past (i.e. the EMX bus line), and that they strongly oppose the proposed zone change. They believe the zone change, if approved, will allow for commercial development that will degrade property values and the overall quality of their neighborhood. No additional testimony has been received. Zone Change Evaluation EC 9.7330 and EC 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 typeface. Staff’s findings in response to each of the criteria are provided below, to assist the Hearings Official in making a decision on the zone change request. 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 proposed E-2 zoning is consistent with this designation. 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 2 and 3 of the applicant’s written statement.) Staff finds the following Metro Plan policies to be the most relevant:  Policy B.5: Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. The proposal is consistent with this policy as a change to E-2 zoning would provide additional land for expansion of industrial uses existing south of the subject site.  Policy B.6: Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the projections of demand. The proposal is consistent with this policy as rezoning of the subject property would increase the amount of vacant land available for light industrial and commercial uses.  Policy B.16: Utilize processes and local controls, which encourage retention of large parcels or consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. Rezoning the subject property to E-2 will complement the industrially zoned land to the south, allowing for more comprehensive industrial and/or commercial uses in the area. Based on these findings, the criterion is met. Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 3 PC Agenda - Page 3  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 Bethel-Danebo Phase 2 Refinement Plan is the applicable adopted refinement plan for the area of the proposed zone change. On page 15 the Plan states that “These sites [including the subject property] remain the only two areas within the WEIA which could be appropriate for residential use. However, the following concerns have been identified, suggesting residential uses should not be introduced into the area.” A zone change from R-1 to E-2 would be consistent with this statement, as E-2 zoning would not allow the introduction of new residential uses in this area. It should also be noted that there appear to be no mandatory policies or other refinement plan provisions that conflict with the long-standing Metro Plan industrial designation for subject property. Further, the Bethel-Danebo Phase 2 Refinement Plan states that “By protecting these areas from encroachment by potentially incompatible residential development, increased demand [of industrial land] can be accommodated.” Even though R-1 zoning and residential uses have remained intact along Stewart Road, the Metro Plan has long designated this entire neighborhood for industrial uses. It just so happens that many property owners along the street have maintained their single-family residences and R-1 zoning status, and up to this point have not elected to rezone their properties (or sell their properties to someone who would rezone and redevelop). The subject property is also within the West Eugene Wetland Plan (WEWP) area. This area plan is also part of the City’s adopted Goal 5 inventory; however, Map 3 (Wetland Designations; p. 17) within the WEWP indicates that no wetlands or sensitive habitat exist on the subject property. Therefore, staff finds that no Goal 5 natural resource protections apply, and that no policies within the WEWP would serve as mandatory approval criteria for the proposed zone change. In summary, staff concludes that the City’s applicable long-range planning documents (i.e. the Metro Plan and the applicable refinement plan) contemplate future development of industrial and employment uses in the Stewart Road area where the subject property is located. While staff acknowledges the existing single-family homes along Stewart Road, and the associated compatibility concerns and impact that would occur as a result of future development allowed in the E-2 zone, the City must follow the policy direction set forth in these adopted long-range planning documents which support approval of the applicant’s request. 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). Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 4 PC Agenda - Page 4 Referral comments from the Public Works Department, included in the application file, confirm that the uses and density allowed by the E-2 zone on the subject property can be serviced through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Based on these findings, the criterion is met. 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. EC 9.2430(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. Subsection (a) is not met because the property lacks frontage on an arterial street. Subsection (b) is met because the subject property is contiguous to a parcel currently zoned E-2. Based on these findings, the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements. 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. This criterion does not apply as the proposed zone change does not include the NR zone. Transportation Planning Rule Evaluation 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 the 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 City of Eugene 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 Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 5 PC Agenda - Page 5 was adopted (i.e. on or before adoption in 2001), pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060(9). In other words, where a zone change clearly implements a plan designation that was in effect at the time the TSP was adopted, there is a strong case for exemption under 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. Here, an exemption under TPR for the proposed change would not apply because the TransPlan did not consider the more recently created E-2 zone. While E-2 is closely related to the I-2 zone (which is considered in the TransPlan), E-2 allows additional uses that generate more traffic than uses permitted in I-2 zones. The applicant’s materials include a “Trip Cap Letter” prepared by Sandow Engineering (see Attachment B). This trip generation analysis determined the vehicle generation for the existing and proposed zoning. The R-1 zoning is predicted to produce 19 PM peak hour trips while E-2 zoning is predicted to produce 388 PM peak hour trips. The report assumed single-family residential uses in the existing R-1 zone, with office, convenience store and drinking place uses as the worst-case development scenario for the proposed E-2 zone. As signified by the estimated PM peak hour trips stated above, development in an E-2 zone would be expected to produce a significantly larger volume of traffic than what could occur in the existing R-1 zone. As amended in 2013, the TPR allows an applicant to include in its initial significant effect analysis an “enforceable requirement” that would limit traffic generation. In this case the applicant is proposing a trip cap to serve as the enforceable, ongoing requirement under TPR. The applicant has proposed to implement a trip cap of 19 trips to address the traffic impacts of the E-2 zone. In effect, the trip cap will limit the development impact of the property to that of the existing the R-1 zone. With the implementation of a trip cap there is no net increase in traffic as a result of the zone change. Therefore, Public Works staff agrees there is not a significant effect on the transportation system as a result of the proposed E-2 zoning with a 19 Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 6 PC Agenda - Page 6 PM peak hour trip cap, and recommends approval of the proposed zone change subject to the condition of approval noted below. 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 Zone, subject to the following condition:  Development of the subject site is limited to a maximum of 19 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 660-012-0060. Alternatively, the City may allow development intensity beyond this maximum number of peak hour vehicle trips if the applicant submits an analysis to the City (subject to the Type II land use application procedures) demonstrating that the intensification of the use would be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060, 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 included as Attachment A. The TPR letter prepared by Sandow Engineering is included as Attachment B. 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 Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5437; or by e-mail, at: erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us Murry, Ross (Z 15-5) September 2015 7 PC Agenda - Page 7  Attachment A - Vicinity Map STEWART RD BAILEY HILL RD OBIE ST W 11TH AVE Legend ´ Subject Property Ft Caution: This map is based on imprecise 0 125 250 500 source data, subject to change, Streets and for general reference only. Taxlots 9-15-2015 PC Agenda - Page 8  Attachment B SANDOWENGINEERING 160 Madison Street Suite A Eugene, Oregon 97402 541.513.3376 July 9, 2015 Jed Truett Metro Planning Inc 370 Q Street Springfield, Or 97477 RE: Trip Generation for Proposed Ross Murry Zone Change on Stewart Road. Mr. Truett: Sandow Engineering has prepared a trip generation estimate consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR); the Statewide Planning Rule Goal 12, OAR 660-12-0060 (1) requirements, for tax lot 200 located at just south of Stewart Road and west of Bailey Hill in Eugene, Oregon. The applicant is requesting a zone change for this property, therefore is subject to show consistency with TPR requirements by demonstrating that the traffic generated by the proposed zoning will not have a significant effect on the adjacent transportation system. This is achieved by determining if the proposed zoning will generate more trips on the surrounding transportation system than the existing zoning. This is done by evaluating a reasonable “worst- case” development scenario for each land use. It has been determined that the proposed zoning will generate substantially more traffic to the site than the existing zoning. . In lieu of evaluating the surrounding transportation system and providing the anticipated extensive mitigation at the nearby signalized intersection, a “trip cap” is proposed. SITE ZONING The site project site consists of 1.08 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Low Density Residential R-1. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to Mixed Use Employment E-2. EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The reasonable ‘worst-case” development potential and associated traffic generation for the existing zone change is illustrated in Table 1. These numbers were determined using the following assumptions and the allowed used under the EC 9.2700 through 9.2750. R1 Zoning x 14 units per acre The trip generation estimates use information contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manuals 9th edition. Table 1 illustrates the trip generation estimate for the PM peak hour. PC Agenda - Page 9  Attachment B From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering RE: Ross Murry Zone Change Date: 7.9.15 Page 2 TABLE 1: PM PEAK HOUR WORST CASE-TRIP GENERATION EXISTING ZONING PM Peak Hour Trip GeneraƟon Size ITE Land Use (ksf) Rate Trips PM Peak Hour R1 Zoning 210-Single Family Residen al 15 Ln(T) = 0.90Ln(X) +0.51 19 Total R1 Trips 19 PROPOSED ZONING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The reasonable “worst-case” development potential for the proposed zoning of E2 is illustrated in Table 2. These numbers were determined using the following assumptions and the allowed used under the Eugene Code 9.2400 through 9.2471. E2 Zoning: x Building area is 33% of site: 15,500 square feet x 57% of the site is parking, drive isles, loading areas, and storm water treatments x 10% is landscaped areas The trip generation was estimated using the information contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th edition. Various development scenarios were explored until a maximum number of trips was determined (assuming a reasonable development scenarios consistent with code requirements). Table 2 illustrates the trip generation estimates for the PM peak hour. TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUR WORST CASE-TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED ZONING PM Peak Hour Trip GeneraƟon Size ITE Land Use (ksf) Rate Trips PM Peak Hour E2 Zoning 710-Office 7.0 T = 1.12(X) +78.45 86 852-Convenience Store 5.0 52.41 262 925-Drinking Place 3.5 11.34 40 Total E2 Trips 388 SANDOW ENGINEERING PC Agenda - Page 10  Attachment B From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering RE: Ross Murry Zone Change Date: 7.9.15 Page 3 FINDINGS As illustrated, the reasonable “worst-case “development potential of the site generates substantially more traffic than the existing zoning, therefore will create a significant effect on the surrounding transportation system. In lieu of evaluating the surrounding transportation system and providing the anticipated extensive mitigation at the nearby signalized intersection, a “trip cap” is proposed. The applicant is proposing a trip cap of 19 pm peak hour trips equivalent to the existing zoning R-1 worst case development scenario. As per Statewide Planning Rule Goal 12, OAR 660-12-0060 (1) the proposed trip cap to the level of the existing zoning does not create a “significant effect” on the surroundings transportation system. Therefore, the requirements of the zone change are met. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Kelly Sandow PE SANDOW ENGINEERING PC Agenda - Page 11