Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Sloat Room, Atrium Building www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair- accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541) 682-5481. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE SKYWORLD MANAGEMENT LLC (Z 17-1) Request: Zone change from Low-Density Residential with a Nodal Development Overlay (R-1/ND), to Neighborhood Commercial with a Nodal Development Overlay (C-1/ND) Location: 2729 and 2743 Coburg Road, and 2802 Kinney Loop (Assessor’s Map/Tax Lots: 17-03-16-23-04000/04100/04200) Applicant: Skyworld Management LLC Representative: Karl Mueller, Metro Planning Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5282 E-mail: althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us II. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE BENSON, AMBER (Z 16-4) Request: Zone change from Low-Density Residential (R-1) and Medium-Density Residential with Site Review Overlay (R-2/SR), to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Location: 945 and 955 Coburg Road (Assessor’s Map/Tax Lots: 17-03-20-44-00101/01702) Applicant: Amber Benson Representative: Michael Reeder, Arnold Gallagher Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate 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): Skyworld Management LLC (Z 17-1) Applicant’s Representative: Karl Mueller, Metro Planning Inc. Applicant’s Request: Rezone subject properties from Low-Density Residential with a Nodal Development Overlay (R- 1/ND) to Neighborhood Commercial with a Nodal Development Overlay (C-1/ND) Subject Property: Addresses: 2729 and 2743 Coburg Road and 2802 Kinney Loop; Assessor’s Map/Tax Lots: 17-03-16-23/04000, 04100, and 04200 Relevant Dates: Application submitted on January 6, 2017; application deemed incomplete on February 2, 2017; supplemental materials received February 8, 2017; application deemed complete February 9, 2017; public hearing scheduled for April 5, 2017. Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5282 Purpose of Staff Report Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, the quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. Background and Present Request The subject property is currently zoned Low-Density Residential with a Nodal Development Overlay (R-1/ND). As noted above, the applicant requests a zone change to Neighborhood Commercial Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 1 with a Nodal Development Overlay (C-1/ND). The area in which the subject property is located was previously part of the Coburg/Crescent Special Area Study, which was an adopted refinement plan. In 1992, the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) was adopted, becoming the refinement plan which sets the site-specific land use designations for the subject property (see WAP page 61). The subject property is comprised of 3 tax lots, is approximately .79 acres in size, and is located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Crescent and Coburg Roads. The Nodal Development Overlay was applied as part of an ordinance which adopted the Crescent Avenue Nodal Development area (see ordinance number 20282). Further discussion of the property’s commercial and nodal development land use designations according to the WAP and the Metro Plan is included in the following evaluation. The subject property is located in an area with a mix of land uses, and zoning. To the west property is zoned for Medium-Density Residential (R-2). To the south is a larger commercial area, which includes property zoned for Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), property zoned Community Commercial (C-2), and property zoned General Office (GO). To the east property is zoned for Low-Density Residential (R-1). To the north property exists which is not yet annexed and is currently developed with single family homes, and a school district administrative office. The zoning of the properties to the north includes Low-Density Residential (R-1/UL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1/UL). For vicinity and zoning maps of the subject area, see Attachments A and B. Referrals and Public Notice On February 13, 2017, staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group (Northeast Neighbors). Notice of the proposed zone change was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on February 13, 2017. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in the application file for reference. The substance of the referral comments is addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and standards in the following evaluation. Public notice of the subject application was mailed on March 3, 2017, consistent with the requirements of EC 9.7315 Public Hearing Notice. The Planning Division has received no public testimony at the time of publication of this staff report. Any testimony received following the completion of this staff report, and prior to the public hearing, will be presented to the Hearings Official at the hearing. Zone Change Evaluation The Hearings Official will review the 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 (see EC 9.7330 and EC 9.8865). 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. Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 2  EC 9.8865(1): The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The applicant requests Neighborhood Commercial zoning with a Nodal Development Overlay (C-1/ND). While the Nodal Development designation is clearly represented on the Metro Plan land use diagram (and the applicant’s request to retain the implementing /ND overlay is consistent with that designation), areas specifically designated for Neighborhood Commercial uses are not shown on the land use diagram. The text of the Metro Plan provides policies which generally support Neighborhood Commercial zoning:  Policy A.22: Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.  Policy B.22: Review local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for promoting appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods.  Policy B.28: Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. The above policies provide support for Neighborhood Commercial zoning, expressing the desire to provide for these types of commercial facilities in predominantly residential areas, including land designated for residential uses by the Metro Plan land use diagram. The policies make clear that while the commercial facilities are desired, consideration of the context of commercial development is necessary to determine if it is appropriate for a particular neighborhood. In this case, the applicant’s request for C-1 would not be located on residentially designated land. While it is difficult to precisely determine based on the scale of the adopted Metro Plan land use diagram, the subject property does appear to be designated on the map for commercial uses along Coburg Road near its intersection with Crescent Avenue. This is further confirmed upon a review of the parcel-specific land use diagram of the WAP, the applicable refinement plan, which shows it being designated for commercial uses. Text in the Metro Plan at page II-G-2 also makes it clear that the Metro Plan diagram is parcel-specific where properties are shown on an adopted, parcel-specific refinement plan map such as the WAP. The subject property is a portion of a larger commercial area, however, no specific category of commercial designation is clarified by the diagram or text of the WAP. Additionally, the subject property is located between land designated for residential and commercial uses to the north, and land designated for more intense commercial uses to the south. While the subject property does not occupy the entire area between the residential and commercial uses, the portion it does occupy will provide a transition between the two land uses. The Metro Plan (page II-G-5) provides additional guidance for the location of neighborhood commercial facilities, however, it is made clear that the ultimate determination of Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 3 appropriateness of specific sites is left to the local jurisdiction. The items listed as location standards and site criteria are listed below: 1. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For a full-service neighborhood commercial center at the high end of the size criteria, an adequate support population would be about 4,000 persons (existing or anticipated) within an area conveniently accessible to the site. For smaller sites or more limited services, a smaller support population or service area may be sufficient. 2. Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and landscaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential property, as well as along street frontages next door to outdoor parking areas. 3. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along adjacent streets. 4. The site shall be no more than five acres, including existing commercial development. The exact size shall depend on the numbers of establishments associated with the center and the population to be served. The above standards provide guidance for areas which are residential, however as previously noted, the applicant’s request is in an area already acknowledged by the Metro Plan as being appropriate for commercial uses. Based on the available evidence, and findings above, staff supports the applicant’s request for C-1/ND zoning, as it is consistent with the Metro Plan designation for commercial use and will provide for less intense commercial uses than the designation might otherwise allow (e.g. C-2). Based on these findings, EC 9.8865(1) is met. EC 9.8865(2): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. As noted above, the subject property is within the boundaries of the WAP, specifically in the Coburg-Crescent subarea. In 2003 the WAP was amended to specify the types of commercial designation for specific portions of the Coburg-Crescent subarea, however, no specific category of commercial designation was defined for the subject property (see ordinance number 20302). Nonetheless, the property is clearly designated for commercial uses on the parcel-specific diagram of the WAP, and the applicant’s proposal for C-1 zoning is consistent with that designation. In 2003 the WAP was also amended by an ordinance which specified the boundary of the Crescent Avenue Nodal Development area, and applied the /ND overlay to properties (including the subject property) within the specified area (see ordinance number 20282). The applicant’s proposed zoning will retain the /ND overlay consistent with the Metro Plan and WAP. Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 4 The WAP also provides general policies, one of which appears applicable to the applicant’s request and is provided below:  Policy #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”. The above policy obligates the City to carefully consider future commercial development, and the context of the area in which it is located. In this case the applicant’s request for C-1 is sensitive to the surrounding area by providing the least intense commercial zoning that fits within the property’s commercial land use designation. Eugene Code Chapter 9, lists specific uses allowed in the C-1 zone, and provides standards which must be met for the uses to occur. Coupled with the specific C-1 commercial development standards, and the applicant’s proposal for the least intense commercial zone, the intent of the above policy is met. While the WAP includes “Proposed Action 2.2” indicating that the Site Review (/SR) overlay would be one possible way to implement the policy, it is not mandatory and thus does not provide a clear basis for imposing the additional /SR overlay zoning. There appear to be no other WAP policies that are mandatory or conflict with the applicant’s request. As no specific category of commercial designation is provided for the subject property on the parcel specific diagram (see page 65 of the WAP), and no policy further clarifies the intended commercial designation, staff supports the applicant’s request for C-1/ND based on the available evidence, and findings above. Based on these findings, EC 9.8865(2) 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 from the Public Works Department, included in the application file for reference, confirm that the subject property can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Based on these findings, and future permitting requirements, this 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: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria in EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the following C-1 Neighborhood Commercial siting requirements apply: Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 5  1) New C-1 zones shall be located within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For new C-1 areas between 4½ and 5 acres, an adequate support population is 4,000 people (existing or planned) within an area conveniently accessible to the site. The subject site is located in an area with both residential and commercial development, providing an adequate support population, therefore, this standard is met. 2) New C-1 areas larger than 1.5 acres shall be located on a collector or arterial street. The subject site is less 1.5 acres in size, therefore this standard is met. 3) Existing neighborhood commercial areas shall not be allowed to expand to greater than 1.5 acres unless the development area site abuts a collector or arterial street. The subject site is located to the south of an existing Neighborhood Commercial area, however, it also abuts Coburg Road which is an arterial street. Based on this finding, the applicant’s proposal complies with the above siting requirement. 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 In addition to the zone change approval criteria above, Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), 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 applicant states that it qualifies for an exception under subsection (9), as its request is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. (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. Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 6  (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. The City’s acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the TransPlan, which was adopted in 2002 and provides the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan. The proposed C-1 zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation of the subject property for commercial uses (which has not changed since Transplan was adopted), it does not change the adopted plan map, and it is consistent with the City’s acknowledged TSP. Additionally, the subject site was not exempt from this rule at the time of any UGB amendment or as part of the Transplan 2002 adoption or any subsequent amendment. Based on these findings, the proposed zone change qualifies for the exemption under subsection (9) above, and thus complies with TPR and satisfies OAR 660-012-0060(1). Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings of compliance with the zone change criteria at EC 9.8865 (also including the TPR), staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to Neighborhood Commercial with a Nodal Development Overlay (C-1/ND). 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 Type III 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 B. Zoning Map The entire application file, which includes referral comments and all the applicant’s materials, 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. Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 7 For More Information Please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5282; or by e-mail, at: althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) March 2017 8  Attachment A - Vicinity Map Subject Property COUNTY FARM R D GUADALUPE WAY EUGENE MATT DR WINGATE ST KINNEY LP DAYNA LN CRESCENT AVE COBURG RD SUZANNE WAY ´ ERIN WAY Subject Property Ft Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, Taxlots 0 250 500 and for general reference only. April 2017 Skyworld Management (Z 17-1) Attachment B 17-03-16-23-04000/04100/04200 Zone change from R‐1/ND Low Density Residential with Nodal Development overlay zone to C‐1/ND Neighborhood Commercial with Nodal Development overlay zone MATT DR KINNEY LP DAYNA LN [ [ COBURG RD [ CRESCENT AVE Zoning C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Community Commercial GO General Office R-1 Low-Density Residential R-2 Medium-Density Residential [ Subject Site ´  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): Benson, Amber (Z 16-4) Applicant’s Representative: Michael Reeder, Arnold Gallagher; 541-687-1010 Applicant’s Request: Rezone subject properties from Low-Density Residential (R-1) and Medium-Density Residential with Site Review Overlay (R-2/SR), to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Subject Property: Tax Lots 101 and 1702 of Assessor’s Map 17-03-20-44; Located at 945 and 955 Coburg Road (north of Tomahawk Lane and south of Tandy Turn) Relevant Dates: Application submitted on November 2, 2016; application deemed complete on February 28, 2017; public hearing scheduled for April 5, 2017. Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division; (541) 682-5437 Purpose of Staff Report Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, the quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. Background and Present Request The present request is zone change approval for a property located within Eugene’s Harlow Neighbors area. Tax Lot 101 is approximately 0.98 acre in size, currently zoned R-2 Medium- Density Residential, and designated for Medium Density Residential uses. Tax Lot 1702 is Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 1 approximately 0.28 acre in size, currently zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential, and designated for Low Density Residential uses. The subject properties are currently developed with single- family residences, consistent with their current residential zoning (R-1 and R-2). For vicinity and zoning maps of the area, see Attachments A and B. A prior zone change application was filed for Tax Lot 101 in 2013 (file # Z 13-2). That application proposed a zone change from R-1 to R-2, and was granted a final local approval by the Planning Commission on appeal. The Planning Commission also decided to impose a Site Review (/SR) overlay on the property, resulting in the property’s current zoning of R-2/SR. The Planning Commission’s decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), but was subsequently put “on-hold” (and remains on-hold today). According to the applicant’s representative, “In a settlement agreement between Ms. Benson, Mr. Conte [the appellant] and neighbors, it was agreed that Ms. Benson would pursue a zone change of 945 & 955 Coburg Road to Neighborhood Commercial C-1 without opposition.” Now the applicant requests to rezone both properties to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. As discussed in the following evaluation, the Metro Plan diagram does not identify specific locations suitable for the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Instead, the Metro Plan provides that if applicable standards and criteria are met, neighborhood commercial uses may be appropriate within a variety of areas. Neighborhood Commercial zones are intended to support uses serving the day-to-day needs of nearby residents. A Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Analysis completed by Access Engineering was also submitted by the applicant and is included in the application file for reference. Staff’s response to the TPR Analysis is provided below, following the evaluation of the zone change approval criteria. Referrals and Public Notice On March 1, 2017, staff provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), public agencies, and the affected neighborhood group (Harlow Neighbors). Referral comments were received from the Public Works Engineering Division in regards to the required TPR Analysis. A summary of the analysis and recommendation related to the TPR is included in this report, and the complete TPR analysis is available in the application file for reference. Staff mailed notice of the proposed zone change to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on March 1, 2017. On March 3, 2017, 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. Public testimony was received from neighbor Ron Beick, who believes the property is better suited for low and medium-density residential. He states that commercial property should be located along Coburg Road, north of Cal Young Road or south of Harlow Road. He also notes that a number of students walk past this site on their way to the nearby middle school. Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 2 Staff also received an email from Paul Conte in support of the proposed zone change to C-1, and without imposition of the /SR overlay. He states that he “…can testify with authority that this zone change and the covenant and restrictions that the owner, Ms. Benson, has placed in escrow to be recorded and effective concurrently with final approval to C-1 zoning, are a ‘win- win-win’ for the applicant, the residents and the City. The zone change would allow compatible, mixed-use development on a key transit corridor, thus enabling development consistent with Metro Plan policies, Eugene’s adopted Growth Management policies and the Envision Eugene ‘pillars’ that are proposed for adoption as new comprehensive plan policies. It is extremely rare that all parties, particularly impacted residents, are enthusiastic about a zone change such as this one and the nature of the development that would be allowed. The City should certainly not create obstacles to moving forward in such a constructive manner. In particular, there is no need for, nor legal justification for, imposing a ‘generic’ Site Review (/SR) overlay. Doing so would serve no purpose simply obstruct the legal and welcome future development and use of this site.” An additional letter in support of the application was submitted by Mr. Conte, adjacent property owners, and Jennifer Yeh (the Harlow Neighbors Chair). The letter states that these neighbors are in support of the zone change, and opposed to imposition of a Site Review overlay. No other public testimony has been received; if additional comments are received after the publishing of this report, the comments will be forwarded to the Hearings Official. Zone Change Evaluation The Hearings Official will review the 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 (see EC 9.7330 and EC 9.8865). 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 Neighborhood Commercial land use category is not represented on the Metro Plan land use diagram. Instead, the Metro Plan supports dispersal of Neighborhood Commercial zoning throughout the City. The Metro Plan states that “…approximately 32 percent of the [residentially designated] area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and churches not actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram” (Page II-G-4). In other words, the Metro Plan gives the local jurisdiction (the City of Eugene) the ability to determine the appropriateness of C-1 zoning at specific sites, even in cases like this where the subject properties are designated for Low and Medium Density Residential uses. The Metro Plan also includes the following policies that generally promote Neighborhood Commercial zoning: Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 3   Policy A.22: Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.  Policy B.22: Review local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for promoting appropriate commercial development in residential neighborhoods.  Policy B.28: Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. Consistent with the policies above, the proposed zone change would expand and promote opportunities for commercial development in the Harlow neighborhood and along the Coburg Road commercial corridor. Based on the general Metro Plan policies and guidance, C-1 zoning appears to be appropriate at the subject site so long as applicable location and siting standards are met. The Metro Plan (page II-G-5) also outlines the following minimum location and siting criteria for neighborhood commercial facilities: 1. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For a full-service neighborhood commercial center at the high end of the size criteria, an adequate support population would be about 4,000 persons (existing or anticipated) within an area conveniently accessible to the site. For smaller sites or more limited services, a smaller support population or service area may be sufficient. 2. Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and landscaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential property, as well as along street frontages next door to outdoor parking areas. 3. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along adjacent streets. 4. The site shall be no more than five acres, including existing commercial development. The exact size shall depend on the numbers of establishments associated with the center and the population to be served. The subject property is consistent with these requirements. More specifically, the subject property is located near an adequate support population (further discussed under EC 9.8865(4) below), and is large enough to support parking, vehicle loading, and sufficient landscaping as required by the development standards for C-1 properties. The property is no larger than five acres, and has adequate street frontage to allow for safe and efficient access. Based on these findings, EC 9.8865(1) is met. Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 4  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 subject property is within the boundaries of the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). The WAP designates the subject properties for a combination of Low and Medium Density Residential uses, consistent with the Metro Plan and the existing R-1 and R-2/SR zoning. However, as discussed above, the Metro Plan allows C-1 zoning subject to certain siting requirements irrespective of the underlying plan designations. It is true that the underlying plan designation was the source of dispute between the parties in the prior zone change request to R-2, however staff believes that dispute is now resolved (at least between those parties), in favor of the proposed C-1 zoning and without the /SR overlay. Considering that the issue of underlying plan designations is essentially moot since C-1 is a “floating” zone that can be applied in a variety of areas, and seeing no other conflict as it relates to the refinement plan designations or policies, staff concludes the proposed C-1 zoning is consistent with the WAP and otherwise supported by the Metro Plan provisions as discussed above. The previous zone change also included much discussion and disagreement about the applicability of various WAP plan policies and other provisions such as proposed actions, related to the imposition of a Site Review (/SR) overlay. As noted above and reflected in correspondence from Paul Conte and other neighbors on the matter, including the Harlow Neighbors Chair, opponents of the previous zone change apparently support removal of the /SR overlay. Accordingly, staff provides no further analysis on the potentially relevant policies other than to state that none of them appear to be mandatory or explicitly require imposition of the /SR overlay in this specific case. Based on the above 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 from the City’s Public Works Department confirm that the uses and density allowed by the C-1 zone on the subject property can be serviced by existing urban facilities and services. Those referral comments are included in the application file for reference. Based on these findings, this 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: Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 5  (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria in EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the following C-1 Neighborhood Commercial siting requirements apply: 1) New C-1 zones shall be located within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For new C-1 areas between 4½ and 5 acres, an adequate support population is 4,000 people (existing or planned) within an area conveniently accessible to the site. 2) New C-1 areas larger than 1.5 acres shall be located on a collector or arterial street. 3) Existing neighborhood commercial areas shall not be allowed to expand to greater than 1.5 acres unless the development area site abuts a collector or arterial street. Subsection (1) is met because the subject site is located within convenient walking/bicycle distance of an adequate support population. Using the City’s GIS database, staff determined that more than 400 residential parcels exist within walking distance (1/4 mile). Since the subject property is situated in between two existing commercial centers (approximately 0.3 mile away from each), it is expected that adjacent and nearby residents will walk to the site if it is developed with a neighborhood commercial use. It is also expected that bicyclists will access the subject property as there are also more than 14,000 parcels within biking distance (2 miles). Nearby residents can easily access the site from the east via Tandy Turn and Tomahawk Lane, and from the west via Coburg Road. Coburg Road also serves as a primary north-south connection for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. All of the above mentioned streets have public sidewalks which further increases the convenience for pedestrians accessing the site. Subsection (2) is not applicable as the new C-1 zoned area will not exceed 1.5 acres. Regardless, this criterion would be met as the site is located on an arterial street. Subsection (3) is met because the proposed C-1 area will not exceed 1.5 acres. Regardless, this criterion would be met as the site is located on an arterial street. Based on these findings, this criterion is met. EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. This criterion does not apply as the proposed zone change does not include the NR zone. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Evaluation In addition to the zone change approval criteria above, Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), must also be specifically addressed as part of the requested zone change and in the context of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060. Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 6 The following findings demonstrate that the applicant’s proposed TPR Analysis will comply with all applicable approval criteria. Section 1 and 9 of the TPR are the only sections that apply to the subject proposal, and these criteria are listed below in bold, with findings addressing each. Findings as to why other sections are inapplicable are included in the Public Works referral and applicant correspondence, which is available in the application file for reference. (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. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. A. Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; B. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or C. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The City’s acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the TransPlan, which was adopted in 2002 and provides the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan. The current TSP (TransPlan) was developed assuming vehicular impacts and growth based upon the residential plan designations of the subject properties. Coburg Road was not identified as having substandard vehicular capacity during the planning horizon. Therefore no planned mitigation projects were identified in the current TSP. The subject properties abut Coburg Road between Tandy Turn and Harlow Road. Coburg Road is classified as a major arterial and is currently improved to urban arterial standards including travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, and drainage controls. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties to C-1. A reasonable worst case development scenario in the C-1 zone will result in increased trip generation above the reasonable worst case R-1 and R-2 development scenarios. The applicant’s engineer performed Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 7 background vehicle counts at study intersections to establish baseline traffic volumes and patterns. All intersections and street segments operate with acceptable levels of service for existing conditions. The applicant’s TPR Analysis assumed a fast food restaurant, convenience market open 15-16 hours, a walk-in bank, and a coffee/donut shop without a drive through as the reasonable worst case development scenario for the C-1 zone. The applicant’s engineer analyzed the effect of the proposed C-1 zone above the baseline conditions and during the planning horizon year of 2027. The analysis accounted for proper trip generation, distribution, pass-by trip reduction and annual growth. All intersections and street segments operated within acceptable levels of service for current build conditions and future growth conditions at the planning horizon. The result was no significant impact to the proposed or planned transportation system. The additional traffic impacts from the C-1 zoning would not warrant a change in the function classification of an existing or proposed transportation facility. In summary, the existing transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the reasonable worst case C-1 zoning development scenario, there are no proposals or plans to change the standards for implementing a functional roadway classification system, and access and levels of travel are projected to be maintained. The intersections of Coburg Road at Cal Young Road, Coburg Road at Bailey Lane, Coburg Road at Tandy Turn, and Coburg Road at Harlow Road are not projected to exceed minimum level of service through the planning horizon from background traffic and existing R-1 and R-2 zonings. The increase in traffic due to the C-1 zoning is not projected to degrade the performance of the existing transportation system below performance thresholds established in the current TSP. Based on the applicant’s TPR Analysis, Public Works staff therefore agrees there is not a significant effect on the transportation system as a result of the proposed C-1 zoning. Based on these findings and as confirmed in referral comments from Public Works staff, there is no significant effect on the transportation system as a result of the proposed C-1 zoning. (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 comprehensive 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 zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024- 0020(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. Satisfaction of Section 9 does not exempt an applicant from demonstrating compliance with the TPR. Rather, Section 9 provides a local government with the discretionary authority to conclude that a proposed zone change does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 8 facility if an applicant demonstrates satisfaction with the three requirements of OAR 660-012- 0060(9). Here, while rezoning the subject property to C-1 does not require an amendment to the Metro Plan or the Willakenzie Area Plan, due to the unique nature of the proposed C-1 zone, we cannot rely on OAR 660-012-00060(9) to conclude that the proposed zone change does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. OAR 660-012-0060(9)(b) recognizes the fact that an acknowledged TSP is the local government’s plan for how it will accommodate the traffic impacts expected to occur as the jurisdiction grows in the ways anticipated by it 20-year comprehensive plan. As required by state law, TransPlan was based on the Metro Plan’s land use designations. It follows that, usually, a zone change that is consistent with that comprehensive plan is also consistent with the TSP. Generally, so long as the proposed zone is consistent with the land use designation on which the TSP was based, the zone change is consistent with the TSP. That said, there may be cases in which it is unclear whether a particular zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation on which the TSP was based. The proposed C-1 zone is one, and potentially the only, such case. The C-1 zone is a “floating” zone with no Metro Plan land use designation. Because the C-1 does not clearly implement Low Density or Medium Density Residential designations, we have no basis for concluding that the TransPlan transportation needs analysis presumed, or even considered, C-1 zoning for property with residential designations. Without a way to somehow make a transportation planning connection between the proposed zone and the current Metro Plan designation, we cannot conclude that the proposed zone is consistent with TransPlan; thus, the applicant is not exempt under the rule. All said, the applicant has provided the required analysis confirming compliance with the TPR, as discussed above. Staff Recommendation Based on all the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings of compliance with the zone change criteria at EC 9.8865 (also including the TPR), staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) without the Site Review (/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 B. Current Zoning Map Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 9 The entire application file, which includes referral comments, the applicant’s TPR analysis report and written statement, 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, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5437; or by e-mail, at: erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us Benson (Z 16-4) March 2017 10  Attachment A - Vicinity Map RIGGS ST LUELLA ST Subject BAILEY LN Property BU FF EUGENE ^ SHARON WAY WAY FORRESTER WAY MALLORY LN COBURG RD CORYDON ST TANDY TURN TANDY TURN Subject Property FIRWOOD WAY ASCOT DR TOMAHAWK PL TOMAHAWK LN PIONEER CT TURNBULL LN LYDICK WAY MO AN RG PL PIO HAR NE LOW CHERRY DR ER RD ´ PIK E Subject Property Ft Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, 0 250 500 and for general reference only. Taxlots April 2017  Attachment B Benson, Amber (Z 16-4) 17-03-20-44-00101/01702 Zone change from R‐1 Low Density Residential and R‐2 Medium Density Residential to C‐1 Neighborhood Commercial TANDY TURN TANDY TURN FIRWOOD WAY [ COBURG RD [ TOMAHAWK PL Zoning R-1 Low-Density Residential R-2 Medium-Density Residential [ Subject Site ´