Planning Commission
Regular MeetingEugene, OR · January 11, 2010
Minutes
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
January 11, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Gabriel Flock, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Steve
Ochs, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public
Works Department; Andrew Fisher, visitor.
ABSENT: Randy Hledik, member.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 14, October 12 and November 23, 2009
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved to approve the minutes for
November 23, 2009 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
III. DELIBERATIONS AND ACTION
Lane Memorial Gardens, LLC, (MA 08-1 and Z 09-1) Steve Ochs, 541-682-5453.
Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the Metro Plan Amendment and automatic
refinement plan amendment for Lane Memorial Gardens, without application of
Site Review Overlay zoning, based on the findings attached as Exhibit A to the
January 11, 2010 Agenda Item Summary. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
South Willamette Properties, (MA 09-5, RA 09-1 and Z 09-3), Ann Siegenthaler, 541-682-5452.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan for discussion purposes, moved that the
economic conditions argument be struck from the findings. The motion failed,
1:5, with Mr. Belcher voting in favor of the motion, and Ms. Beierle, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Mills, Mr. Randall and Ms. Warnes voting in opposition to the
motion.
Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved, based on the available evidence in
the record, and the Planning Commission’s discussion, that the Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Metro Plan amendment,
refinement plan amendment and zone change for South Willamette Properties
(City files MA 09-5, RA 09-1, and Z 09-3), with the modifications to the findings
as discussed at the January 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting regarding
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 1
changes in circumstances from RG to R-3. The motion passed 5:1, with Ms.
Beierle, Mr. Belcher, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mills and Mr. Randall voting in favor of
the motion, and Ms. Warnes voting in opposition to the motion.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 2
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
January 11, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Gabriel Flock, Alissa Hansen, Steve Nystrom, Steve
Ochs, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public
Works Department; Andrew Fisher, visitor.
ABSENT: Randy Hledik, member.
Ms. Beierle convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Belcher arrived at 11:34 a.m.
Andrew Fisher, P.O. Box 5063, circulated photographs of the Romania Showroom and distributed
copies of the following documents:
Memorandum dated January 11, 2010 to Members of the City of Eugene Planning Commission
from Andrew Fisher.
Walnut Station Concept map.
Mr. Fisher sought support of the Planning Commission in efforts to preserve a significant historic
resource, the Romania Showroom. The showroom was built in a space age architectural style known as
gugi which was developed following World War II. He was concerned that it was difficult to find
references to historic preservation considerations in the Walnut Station work regarding the structure. He
wanted preserve the structure amidst a park like open space that could serve as the heart of Walnut Station
and a catalyst for further development. The structure was designed by local architect Grant Sedar and
built by local contractor Gale Roberts.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom confirmed Planning staff Ken Guzowski had
been involved in planning process for the Walnut Station.
Responding to a question from Ms. Warnes, Mr. Fisher stated the structure was currently owned by the
University of Oregon (UO) and used for storage for the School of Architecture and Allied Arts.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 14, October 12 and November 23, 2009
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 3
Ms. Beierle noted there was not a quorum present of attendees at the October 12 and October 13, 2009
meetings.
September 14, 2009—No changes—deferred to future meeting.
October 12, 2009—No changes—deferred to future meeting.
November 23, 2009—Mr. Mills offered the following corrections:
Page 4, paragraph 4, should read:
Mr. Mills iterated his concerns about adjusting the data based on the recent past. Changing the
data would result in extensive discussions about the reasons for doing so. He encouraged using
unadjusted data. He asserted that whatever adjustment the commission did made, it would be
considered wrong by many, regardless of intent or hard work the work performed. The
commission would have to use the data to determine the impacts of new policies. Although the
commission should be aspirational in its thoughts, he cautioned the commission to be careful with
what it thought it would achieve with policies that had not yet been vetted. The process needed to
be treated as a 20 long-term process and the appropriate level of conservatism needed to be
applied in setting policies.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved to approve the minutes for
November 23, 2009 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
III. DELIBERATIONS AND ACTION
Lane Memorial Gardens, LLC
Mr. Ochs provided the staff report. He stated the applicant requested approval of a Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment that would redesignate the subject property, located
at 5300 West Eleventh Avenue, from Parks and Open Space to Low-Density Residential and a zone change
that would result in the addition of the /SR, site review overlay to the subject property. The applicant had
also proposed a trip cap that limited the number of trips. There was a condition of approval that implemented
the trip cap and allowed the applicant to change the trip cap in the future.
Responding to a question from Mr. Mills, Mr. Ochs said the applicant proposed the site review
requirement in response to Goal 5 requirements. Upon review, staff had found no policy direction that
required addition of the site review.
Mr. Duncan commented it was interesting that cemeteries were zoned as Parks and Open Space. He
understood that if the request was approved, other building and planning requirements such as maximum
site size of 13,500 square feet, would have to be adhered to. If capacity became available in the future, the
property could be developed, with a site plan process requirement to illustrate how the remainder of the
land would be developed in the future.
Mr. Ochs said the applicant would need to meet lot area requirements in the future, and that exceptions to
the maximum lot area could be granted so that some of the property could remain as a reserve.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 4
Mr. Flock added the most likely scenario was there would be reservation of a remainder lot. Through the
sub-division process, Eugene Code (EC) required that the site be shadow platted to demonstrate that it
could meet EC requirements based on the layout.
Mr. Belcher noted the Masonic Cemetery was frequently used as a recreation site.
Ms. Warnes understood that it was a likely scenario that there would be a certain amount of land set aside
for preservation but there were no guarantees. She asked what would prevent the applicant from dividing
the site into 29 one acre parcels.
Mr. Flock asserted there was a maximum lot size requirement for R-1 zoning and the requested
designation would allow implementation of R-1 zoning. If the property were divided, the lots could be no
more than 13,500 square feet in size. It was likely there would be a large remainder area based on the
applicant’s ability to develop only 19 lots. There were several ways an applicant could request an
exception to maximum lot size. It was likely that the applicant would request the exception for the
remainder lot. The applicant would be required to demonstrate how it could be developed in the future.
Another, although less likely option, was that the applicant could establish a conservation easement or
other form of protection that insured an area would be protected in perpetuity. It appeared that the
applicant intended to develop the property in the future.
In response to Ms. Warnes, Mr. Ochs confirmed there was a designated scenic area on the property in the
Metro Plan.
Mr. Nystrom added there were no Goal 5 regulations that affected the site.
Responding to Ms. Warnes regarding development costs, Mr. Flock said it was important to recognize
that this was the plan amendment phase of the process, and the applicant was not required to show a
layout. R-1 zoning requirements would establish the land division standards. The maximum lot size was
a good assurance that the site would be developed in phases in the future. It was unlikely that the
applicant would attempt to establish acre lots and then divide those individually, compared to one large
remainder lot.
Mr. Ochs said the applicant initially proposed development of 283 lots, and the applicant hoped to revisit
the issue when the transportation system allowed for that many lots. Currently, 29 lots were allowed on
the site. He said significant trees on the site had been raised at the December 8, 2009 public hearing.
Without a site review overlay, that issue would be addressed through the subdivision process.
Mr. Mills asked how the trip cap issue would be addressed.
Mr. Ochs explained the applicant would be required to apply under a Type II land use application, which
was a Planning Director decision. At that time the application would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The State of Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) had indicated that it would want to review the TPR due ODOT’s interest in West
Eleventh Avenue. The applicant would need to show that it could meet the required level of service on
West Eleventh Avenue and the intersections in order to have the trip cap changed.
Mr. Flock stated the applicant could show compliance through a variety of methods, including a planned
facility that was adopted and funded through TransPlan that would enhance the facility, or physical
improvements, not necessarily by the applicant, that would provide relief.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 5
Mr. Belcher asked if it would difficult for another party to have a successful application for housing in the
general area of the subject property.
Mr. Nystrom opined it would be dependent upon what the existing land use would allow, versus what
changes the applicant would propose. If an amendment triggered the TPR requirements, and a change in
circumstances was identified through the review process to increase the traffic demand, it could be
problematic for the applicant.
Mr. Belcher noted there were some large parcels that were assumed to be developable at R-2 and R-3 in
the area. He asked if the applicant had the right to develop at this point or would they also encounter a
trip cap problem.
Mr. Nystrom responded that if the development required zone changes to R-2 or R-3, it could be
problematic under current TPR requirements. It was likely that this would be looked under the next
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) review.
Ms. Warnes asked why the proposed action was required if the applicant’s site was already zoned low-
density.
Mr. Ochs stated that subdivision zoning criteria required compliance with the Metro Plan.
Mr. Randall asked if the trip cap investigation was done with the site zoned R-2/R-3 or as vacant on the
surrounding properties currently designated R-2/R-3
Mr. McNeel stated the determination was based on existing traffic conditions.
Mr. Duncan stated he was in support of the Metro Plan change, noting evidence had suggested the land
would not be used for cemetery or open space as originally planned. The land was inside the urban
growth boundary (UGB) and it made sense to use those lands wisely. He added the commission tended to
err on the side of wanting site review but understood staff felt there was nothing in the site review process
that would add to the project.
Mr. Nystrom stated staff was unsure there was a policy basis requirement or justification regardless of
whether there was benefit in a site review.
Mr. Duncan preferred approval without site review. He saw no reason to increase an applicant’s work
and costs without an identified requirement.
Ms. Warnes asked if the site review would serve as another level of potential protection for heritage trees.
She supported more protections to potential heritage trees or other natural resources.
Mr. Nystrom stated the same standards would be applied to future development applications such as a
subdivision. It was difficult to see that the property could be developed as R-1 without a land use
application. There were provisions in the subdivision process that would recognize heritage trees and
other significant trees.
Mr. Flock added site review would provide no additional protection beyond the subdivision.
Mr. Belcher asked, if there was a logical concern that could be resolved by a site review that was not
already in the code, which he averred did not exist in this situation, if specific site review criteria could be
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 6
added by the Planning Commission at this time.
Mr. Nystrom responded site review criteria could not be added unless there was a policy basis to do so,
which did not exist in the current code.
While Mr. Belcher understood Ms. Warnes’ concerns, he thought it was a meaningless addition of a
requirement. Based on Mr. Nystrom’s statements, he further understood that such a requirement was not
permitted. Mr. Belcher was inclined to state that site review was not allowed and it provided no
additional protections than currently allowed.
Mr. Flock recalled the Planning Commission’s recent deliberations and findings on the Shin zone change
appeal. As a legal matter, the commission dispensed with the question of whether EC allowed the City to
apply site specific or other custom criteria. Based on changes that took place under the Land Use Code
Update (LUCU), the ability to apply such criteria was removed procedurally. The City Attorney had
confirmed this procedural limitation.
Mr. Mills was comfortable with the protections in place without site review. He was uncomfortable with
the unforeseen reverberations for other applicants and land uses that would arise from the trip cap, which
he saw no way to avoid.
Mr. Randall agreed site review would be redundant while providing no additional protections.
Additionally, submitting duplicate information was frustrating for developers. He agreed with Mr. Mills’
concern about the trip cap. He would support the request without site review.
Ms. Beierle stated she would support the application without site review. She opined density
requirements could change in the future when conditions changed.
Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the Metro Plan Amendment and automatic
refinement plan amendment for Lane Memorial Gardens, without application of
Site Review Overlay zoning, based on the findings attached as Exhibit A to the
January 11, 2010 Agenda Item Summary. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
South Willamette Properties
Ms. Siegenthaler provided the staff report. She stated a public hearing was held on a proposal to amend
the Metro Plan land use diagram and South Willamette Subarea Study refinement plan, and approve a
concurrent zone change for South Willamette Properties on December 8, 2009, at which time the record
was closed. The applicant requested approval of a Metro Plan amendment that would redesignate the
subject property from High Density Residential to Commercial, a refinement plan amendment that would
amend the South Willamette Subarea Plan land use designation from High Density Residential, and
amend plan policies to clarify that the subject property was appropriate for office use (GO zoning). The
applicant also requested a concurrent zone change to rezone the property from R-3 Limited High Density
Residential to General Office (GO). The property subject was located at 2440 Willamette Street. The .5
acre property was developed with an existing medical health facility and associated parking. Approval of
the request would allow future development of office uses on the site.
At the public hearing, the applicant and the applicant’s representatives spoke in favor of the amendments.
One person, Mr. Bill Kloos, provided testimony in opposition to the proposal. He submitted a letter to the
Planning Commission and submitted attachments to that letter for the file record, copies of which were
provided to the Planning Commission. He raised the following issues in his testimony: the status of the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 7
existing use as a legal non-conforming use; implications for the City’s residential lands supply; adequacy
of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA); and whether the changed circumstances described in the
preliminary findings supported the refinement plan amendment. Where these issues were relevant to the
approval criteria, they were addressed in preliminary findings provided in the Planning Commission’s
December 9, 2009 agenda packet. No other testimony was provided.
Based on the evidence to date, staff found that the proposed Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan
amendment and zone change were consistent with the approval criteria from applicable EC. Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission take action to recommend approval of the requests to the
City Council.
Ms. Siegenthaler opened the floor to questions from commissioners.
Mr. Duncan asked if the Planning Commission had discussed the general economy and economics as a
rationale for change in the past.
Ms. Siegenthaler stated there were often applicants who submitted a single property request, with the
motivation being economic and market driven.
Mr. Duncan was not questioning market conditions but rather looking for a more detailed review of the
idea that the economy was bad, and therefore the change was needed. He opined that argument could be
used for everything during a recession.
Mr. Nystrom could recall no comparable action.
Ms. Warnes looked at the request in terms of the commission’s review of UGB expansions. It seemed to
be an ill plan to change high density residential to general office space unless it served the greater good.
This proposal seemed to be serving the property owners, and because of the current economy, the owner
was unable to sell the property for its intended use. There was plenty of vacant office space in the area.
The high density residential area lent itself well to nodal development. She was not in support of making
the change.
Mr. Mills opined general office did allow for residential and nodal development in a mixed use scenario.
He added a multi-use center could be developed at that location under GO or R-3, although there would
be more latitude with GO in what types of business could be located on the site. Under the GO scenario,
he thought the proposal would increase the probability of development occurring on the site that would
increase density.
Ms. Siegenthaler confirmed the types of businesses allowed in R-3 were limited when compared to GO.
Mr. Belcher suggested one of the several conditions needed to be in place to modify the refinement plan
and staff argued that newer, amended community policies were the reason why it was appropriate to
change the refinement plan.
Ms. Siegenthaler explained the staff argument was primarily that there had been a change in market
trends as well as changes that had not been anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. She
directed commissioners to page 41 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), section (2) (e), which stated “A
change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan
was adopted.”
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 8
Mr. Duncan said the applicant testified that the change in circumstance was that Peace Health Medical
Center (PHMC) relocated to the RiverBend campus and all demand had moved in that direction.
However, there was counter testimony that indicated that doctors were moving away from RiverBend and
establishing stand alone clinics throughout the community. As a city that planned for development
change, the market was always changing. He questioned if a market change was the right criteria to use
to initiate changes to the Metro Plan and refinement plans. He asserted the Metro Plan was outdated, but
that was what was in place. The current Metro Plan and refinement plan called for the site to be high
density residential but an economic change did not support the current medical clinic. He questioned
logic for supporting the request. He said if other types of development were desirable, the plan should
help that occur, rather than continuing to foster the redevelopment of properties under their existing
designation. He stated under the Metro Plan, the designation needed to be changed to commercial
because there was not a plan designation for GO. If the site was changed to commercial in the Metro
Plan, he asked if a developer would be allowed to change the designation to commercial in the future if
GO is not successful. A commercial Metro Plan designation would open the site to C-2 uses.
Ms. Siegenthaler responded that if the request was approved, the commission would also change the
refinement plan to GO, which would dictate what could be built in the site. Any future requests to allow
C-2 types of uses would require a refinement plan amendment. She noted the site, which was not a
vacant site, had been designated as a medical site since the 1960’s. Staff considered a combination of site
characteristics and it was a policy decision for the Planning Commission to determine whether it made
sense to hold onto a high density residential zoning for a site that functioned as an office, and had
functioned as an office for decades. The building had recently been extensively renovated. It was
unlikely that there would be residential uses on the site in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Duncan agreed the site would not likely become high density residential within the next 30 years, and
it was unlikely that anything would be added to the building since it filled the site. The building would
not meet current building requirements to enable additional floors to be built on the structure without
having unrecoverable major costs. The property owner was aware of pending economic changes due to
the relocation of PHMC at the time he made a significant financial investment in building renovations.
He agreed it made sense to make it fit the neighborhood zoning and continue with its existing use, but he
questioned the validity of making Metro Plan changes, asserting the economic argument did not fit well.
Such action would set a precedent for future requests for plan amendments.
Mr. Nystrom averred that the action would not be precedent setting, noting there were other
circumstances cited in the request. He added that it was a market situation coupled with other
circumstances, some of which were related to code issues, others which were related to site
circumstances, and how the site had been used historically. Staff saw the change in circumstances as
being more difficult now than previously to make the site work as it had been envisioned. He noted there
was a narrow band of allowed uses on the site, where in other circumstances, a wider range of
opportunities would be available.
Mr. Mills noted the building had been in a non-permitted for many years and asked why it had never been
changed.
Ms. Siegenthaler responded the precise construction date of the building and siting of the medical facility
was unknown, but it was built during the 1960s.
Ms. Hansen added the code changed in the late 1960’s, prior to which time, a medical clinic did not
require a conditional use permit (CUP). With the 1968 code update, a CUP would have been required.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 9
Mr. Mills stated this was a key issue that prevented the request from being precedent setting because of
the unique circumstance.
Mr. Randall asked what uses were allowed under the old code, and if the new code significantly was more
restrictive related to allowed uses on the site. He observed that the new code was more limited. He asked
if the circumstance had changed with the code change that made it more restrictive.
Ms. Siegenthaler said the uses had not changed since the late 1960’s code established the requirement for
a CUP. Medical office uses had been allowed for quite some time while most office uses had not been
allowed in R-3. Thus, the basic allowed uses had not changed. There had been other code changes.
During the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) process, there were some code revisions that required non-
residential uses in a residential zone to comply with the residential density standards. Staff findings
indicated that it was more difficult now for existing non-residential uses, that options and opportunities
for changing uses and redeveloping in a way that was more consistent with the current underlying base
zone were more limited.
Mr. Nystrom said there were two primary changes that made it more difficult for non-residential uses in
R-3, which required additional processes to determine if the non-residential uses were justifiable. The
scales had also been tipped more toward residential which made it difficult for existing uses to operate in
the future and limited their ability to evolve, which was a policy question.
Mr. Randall asked how the commission’s decision would impact encouragement of mixed use
development.
Mr. Nystrom stated that GO zoning enabled a greater range of opportunities for mixed use than R-3
would because R-3 was very limiting on the non-residential side. He added that this strip of Willamette
Street was viewed as a transition zone, and it seemed appropriate that GO historically served as a buffer
between residential and true commercial zones which were appropriate for this area.
Mr. Belcher thought it unfortunate that the refinement plan talked about a use that differed from what was
located on the site. He noted the aspirational nature of refinement plans could be a contributing factor. He
asked if there was another mechanism that would allow the applicant to be compliant under the current
designation other than a zone change.
Ms. Siegenthaler said the applicant could apply for a CUP which would remedy the current legal non-
conformance issue, but it would not provide the range of office uses the applicant desired which he said
he needed in order to compete in the market.
Mr. Belcher was compelled by that argument. He iterated his concern that an economic argument could
be made before a refinement plan could be modified. He was opposed to changes to refinement plans
unless there was a bona fide reason to do so. He believed the change in the code was a bona fide
condition. He asked if the economic argument were struck from the request, could the argument still be
made by the change in conditions of the codes.
Mr. Nystrom said it was at the commission’s discretion to make that decision.
Mr. Belcher found the economic conditions argument leading to a slippery slope which he opposed.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan for discussion purposes, moved that the
economic conditions argument be struck from the findings.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 10
Mr. Duncan asked what the property would have been zoned prior to the late 1960’s zoning that would
have allowed a medical clinic on the site. He asked if it was a specific use allowed or if other types of
uses would have been allowed at that time.
Ms. Siegenthaler said it was zoned residential garden apartments (RG), in the 1960’s, which allowed
clinic uses outright at the time.
Mr. Duncan recalled that RG addressed the likelihood of uses other than RG uses in general terms.
Ms. Hansen affirmed that the RG zoning clearly called out doctors’ offices as well as other allowed uses.
Mr. Duncan did not necessarily support striking economic conditions from the findings, but could accept
it as additional supporting information. However, the findings on page 42 of the AIS that stated, “This
supports the conclusion that there has been a change in circumstances that could not have been
anticipated at the time of the SWS adoption.” He concurred with Mr. Belcher that the change in allowed
uses from the time when the building was constructed under the zoning existing at that time to present day
zoning requirements was a consideration. He reiterated his support of including economic conditions in
the discussion as long as the findings and motion clearly stated that was not the primary reason for a
change in circumstances.
Mr. Mills was concerned that the commission was asserting that circumstances could not involve
economic circumstances, and that economics could not be taken into consideration when planning the
future of the city. Although economic conditions were short term, he asserted that failing to consider
them in the planning process would be a grave error.
Mr. Belcher asked if the change in allowed uses from the old to the new code was a change in
circumstances or a change in policies, opining it was a change in policies. His problem with economics
for this case was economics was an unsubstantiated allegation. He was concerned that refinement plans
had been developed by neighbors and approved by the City Council, and the commission was now
considering changing such a plan. This process made it too easy to change refinement plans without
neighborhood participation when circumstances did not suit developers.
.
Mr. Duncan clarified his statements, noting the move of PHMC to RiverBend was driving the idea that
development was moving to that area. A proactive planning process that fit the community was
influenced by economics. He supported economic changes as a viable reason for code changes if they
were not site specific. He was concerned, as was Mr. Belcher that the proposal led to a slippery slope.
The motion failed, 1:5, with Mr. Belcher voting in favor of the motion, and Ms.
Beierle, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mills, Mr. Randall and Ms. Warnes voting in
opposition to the motion.
Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved, based on the available evidence in
the record, and the Planning Commission’s discussion, that the Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Metro Plan amendment,
refinement plan amendment and zone change for South Willamette Properties
(City files MA 09-5, RA 09-1, and Z 09-3), with the modifications to the findings
as discussed at the January 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting regarding
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 11
changes in circumstances from RG to R-3. The motion passed 5:1, with Ms.
Beierle, Mr. Belcher, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mills and Mr. Randall voting in favor of
the motion, and Ms. Warnes voting in opposition to the motion.
Mr. Randall noted a significant amount of time had passed between when the original building was
constructed in the 1960’s, the refinement plan was adopted in 1988, and today.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
There were no other items from staff.
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Belcher suggested the commission have a primer on trip caps in the future.
Mr. Randall announced the Climate Energy Task Team was scheduled to meet on January 13, 2010 at
4:00 p.m. in the Saul Room.
Ms. Beierle noted today was Ms. Warnes’ birthday.
Mr. Duncan served on the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) as the Planning
Commission representative. He directed commissioners to www.vibranteugene.com for information on
the committee’s work and schedule for upcoming open houses.
Ms. Beierle adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission January 11, 2010 Page 12
Agenda
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: 541‐682‐5481 Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue
www.eugene‐or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401
The Eugene Planning Commission 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 prior to the
meeting. Spanish‐language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these
services, contact the receptionist at 541‐682‐5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are
available at 541‐682‐5119.
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public
comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public
hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time
limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the
option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to
speak.
11:40 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of September 14, October 12, and November 23, 2009
11:45 a.m. III. DELIBERATIONS AND ACTION
LANE MEMORIAL GARDENS, LLC (MA 08‐1 and Z 09‐1)
Metro Plan Amendment to change the plan designation of the southernmost 28.46
acres of the 79.28 Lane Memorial Gardens Cemetery from Parks and Open Space to
Low Density Residential, including automatic refinement plan amendment to the
Willow Creek Special Area Study, to change designation from Open Space to Low
Density Residential, and concurrent zone change to rezone the same area from R‐
1/CAS Low Density Residential with the Commercial Airport Safety overlay to R‐
1/CAS/SR, to apply the /SR Site Review overlay. Staff: Steve Ochs, 541‐682‐5453
SOUTH WILLAMETTE PROPERTIES (MA 09‐5, RA 09‐1 and Z 09‐3)
Metro Plan Amendment to change the plan designation from High Density Residential to
Commercial; Refinement Plan Amendment to amend the South Willamette Sub‐Area plan
designation from High Density Residential, and to amend plan policies to clarify that the
property is appropriate for office use (GO zoning); and zone change from R‐3 Limited High
Density Residential to GO General Office. Staff: Ann Siegenthaler, 541‐682‐5452
1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; William Randall; Lisa Warnes
PC AIS, p 1
PC AIS, p 2
PC AIS, p 3
PC AIS, p 4
PC AIS, p 5
PC AIS, p 6
PC AIS, p 7
PC AIS, p 8
PC AIS, p 9
PC AIS, p 10
PC AIS, p 11
PC AIS, p 12
PC AIS, p 13
PC AIS, p 14
PC AIS, p 15
PC AIS, p 16
PC AIS, p 17
PC AIS, p 18
PC AIS, p 19
PC AIS, p 20
PC AIS, p 21
PC AIS, p 22
PC AIS, p 23
PC AIS, p 24
PC AIS, p 25
PC AIS, p 26
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
January 11, 2010
TO: Eugene Planning Commission
FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
ITEM TITLE: Deliberations for South Willamette Properties Metro Plan Amendment, Refinement
Plan Amendment and Zone Change (MA 09‐5, RA 09‐1, Z 09‐3)
ACTION REQUESTED: Deliberate and take action on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, refinement
plan amendment, and zone change.
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On December 8, 2009, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on
a proposal to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram and South Willamette Subarea Study refinement
plan, and approve a concurrent zone change for South Willamette Properties. The applicant requests
approval of a Metro Plan amendment that will re‐designate the subject property from High Density
Residential to Commercial, a refinement plan amendment that would amend the South Willamette
Subarea Plan land use designation from High Density Residential, and amend plan policies to clarify that
the subject property is appropriate for office use (GO zoning). The applicant also requests a concurrent
zone change to rezone the property from R‐3 Limited High Density Residential to GO General Office. The
property subject to this request is identified as Assessor’s Map 18‐03‐06‐41 Tax Lot 3100, and is located
at 2440 Willamette Street, at the northwest corner of Willamette Street and 24th Place. The .5‐acre
property is developed with an existing medical health facility and associated parking. Approval of the
requests would allow future development of office uses on the site.
At the public hearing, the applicant and applicant’s representatives spoke in favor of the amendments.
One person, Mr. Bill Kloos, provided testimony in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Kloos submitted a
letter to the Planning Commission, and submitted attachments to that letter for the file record. Copies
of the attachments are provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. Mr. Kloos raised the
following issues in his testimony: the status of the existing use as a legal non‐conforming use;
implications for the City’s residential lands supply; adequacy of the Traffic Impact Analysis; and whether
the changed circumstances described in the preliminary findings support the refinement plan
amendment. Where these issues are relevant to the approval criteria, they have been addressed in the
preliminary findings provided in the Planning Commission’s December 8, 2009 packet. No other
testimony was provided. Following the public hearing, the public record was closed.
Based on the evidence to date, staff finds that the proposed Metro Plan amendment, refinement plan
amendment and zone change are consistent with the approval criteria from Eugene Code (EC) 9.7730(3),
EC 9.8424 and EC 9.8865, respectively. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action to
recommend approval of the requests to City Council. Draft motions to facilitate action following
deliberation will be provided at the meeting on January 11, 2010.
PC AIS, p 27
BACKGROUND:
Please refer to the materials provided with the Planning Commission packet for the December 8, 2009
public hearing, and letter of testimony that was provided at the public hearing. The attached findings
(dated January 11, 2010) are the same as those that were attached to the December 8, 2009, with the exception
of the grammatical revision on Page 8 requested by Commissioner Belcher.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Preliminary Findings
Under separate cover: Attachments to December 8, 2009 letter from Bill Kloos.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th Avenue,
Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541‐682‐5452 or via email at ann.siegenthaler@ci.eugene.or.us.
PC AIS, p 28
Attachment A
Preliminary Findings
South Willamette Properties, LLC
(MA 09‐5, RA 09‐1, Z 09‐3)
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (MA 09‐5)
The proposed amendment changes the current Metro Plan land use diagram designation of the
subject property, approximately .5 acre in area, from High Density Residential to Commercial.
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold italics) be applied
to a Metro Plan diagram amendment:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reviewing the proposed amendment complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses
the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration
of the amendments begins with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on
December 8, 2009.
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, the City mailed notice of the proposed plan
amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 22, 2009, as
required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. Referrals concerning the
pending applications were sent on October 23, 2009 to the City of Springfield, Lane County, the
affected neighborhood group, the Friendly Area Neighbors, and to City departments.
The Planning Commission public hearing was noticed, in accordance with Eugene Code
requirements, to the City of Springfield and Lane County, and community groups and individuals
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 1 of 16
PC AIS, p 29
who have requested notice, as well as property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the
subject property, and the Friendly Area Neighbors. Notice was also posted in accordance with
Eugene Code. On November 18, 2009, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the Register‐Guard. The City Council will then hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider approval, modification, or denial of the proposed ordinance. These processes afford
ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the proposed
ordinance is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
The process for adopting the proposed amendment complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since
it complies with the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 ‐ Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for
such decisions and actions.
The Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision‐making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State
in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and application record
show that there is an adequate factual basis for the decisions concerning the proposed
amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental
units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units.
To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of the
proposed amendment with all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the
State Department of Land Conservation and Development, Lane County, and the City of
Springfield. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the proposed amendment. Therefore,
the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 ‐ Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to the proposed amendment as the subject property and amendment do
not affect any agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged
urban growth boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Because the subject property is
entirely within the acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the
amendment does not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 ‐ Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to the proposed amendment as the subject property and amendment does
not affect any forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth
boundaries and, therefore, does not apply to the subject property, which is within Eugene's urban
growth boundary (OAR 660‐006‐0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendment does
not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 2 of 16
PC AIS, p 30
Goal 5 ‐ Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660‐023‐0250(3) provides that local governments are not
required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a post acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA)
unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. The subject property does not include a Goal 5 resource
site. The proposed amendment does not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, does not
amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5, does not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses
with a particular Goal 5 resource site, and does not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to the proposed amendment.
Goal 6 ‐ Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. The proposal does not amend the
metropolitan area’s air, water quality or land resource policies. The site is currently developed
with an office building and associated parking, and it can be reasonably expected that any future
development of the site comply with applicable environmental laws. Nothing in the proposal or
the character of the site or potential future uses indicates a future development that would
compromise air, water and land resources. Based on this, the amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 ‐ Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis and wildfires. The subject property is not located within known areas of natural disasters
or hazards. The subject property is outside the flood zone and is not subject to hazards normally
associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. The property has already been developed
through the applicable permit reviews for compliance with adopted building codes and fire codes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 ‐ Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non‐urban areas of the state. There are no public or private
recreational facilities on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore the proposed amendment
will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will it affect access to existing or
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 3 of 16
PC AIS, p 31
future public recreational facilities. The proposed amendment is, therefore consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 ‐ Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
The Oregon Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that
the City “[p]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and
service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]”
Among other things, the rule requires that cities designate industrial and commercial lands
sufficient to meet short and long term needs (OAR 660‐009‐0025). In addition, OAR 660‐009‐
0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations of lands in excess of two acres
from an industrial use designation to a non‐industrial use designation, or an other employment
use designation to any other use designation, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan
amendment, it must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which
address the requirements of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) amend its comprehensive plan to explain
the proposed amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and
(b) consistent with the requirements of Division 9.
The proposed amendment changes the designation of less than two acres of land, and the
proposed change is from residential to an “other employment use designation.” Therefore, in this
instance, OAR 660‐009‐0010(4) does not apply.
The 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS) is acknowledged for compliance with the
requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. Further analysis of the proposed amendment
relative to the ECLS is provided below in the findings at EC 9.7730(3)(b), which are incorporated
herein by reference.
Based on the above findings, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 ‐ Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing units. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660
Division 8) states that “the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local
buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation.” The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The
1999 Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study (RLS) is
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 4 of 16
PC AIS, p 32
There is sufficient evidence to show that the subject property was not included in the RLS supply
analysis. The RLS states that it assumed that 32 percent of residential land would be used for non‐
residential uses, and that lands used for non‐residential uses, such as commercial, were subtracted
from the available amount of buildable land. According to the applicant’s narrative (page 7 of the
Metro Plan narrative), the subject property has been developed with a non‐residential, office use
since the 1960s. City records confirm that the property has been in a non‐residential use since
prior to the residential lands supply analysis. Because the subject property was not included as
residential land in the RLS, the proposed amendment does not affect the residential land supply
and is, therefore, consistent with Goal 10.
Based on the findings above, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11 ‐ Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The area affected by the amendments is located inside the City limits. The existing level of public
facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future development. The site is
currently developed with an office building and a parking lot, and is fully served. If the property is
redeveloped in the future, existing City land use regulations ensure that provision of public
facilities and services is addressed in the context of any future development proposal. The
proposed amendment does not significantly affect the planning or development of future public
facilities or services. Based on this, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 ‐ Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660‐012‐0000, et seq. The Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660‐012‐0060) states that when land use changes,
including amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility.
To address the TPR, the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated August 14, 2009,
and a letter with revised analyses and tables on November 18, 2009, both prepared by Access
Engineering. City Public Works staff were consulted in the scoping and development of the TIA
and generally agree that the analysis methods used in the TIA materials are acceptable. The TIA
included analysis of the intersections of Willamette Street at 24th Avenue and Willamette Street at
24th Place. Willamette Street is classified as a minor arterial; 24th Avenue and 24th Place are both
classified as local streets. All are improved streets.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 5 of 16
PC AIS, p 33
The TIA evaluates the current performance of the above transportation facilities, the performance
of these facilities at year of opening, and in 2015, relative to current zoning/designations and
proposed zoning/designations. The end of the planning period in the City’s adopted transportation
system plan (TransPlan) is 2015. Regarding planned transportation facilities required to be
addressed by OAR 660‐012‐0060(1), referral comments from Public Works staff indicate that there
are no planned facilities in this area.
In evaluating impacts, the TIA uses a “reasonable worst‐case” scenario for an R‐3 High Density
Residential development as compared to a “reasonable worst‐case” scenario for GO General
Office uses, based on the maximum allowable density of dwelling units and floor area,
respectively, and anticipated trip generation and distribution during the AM and PM Peak Hours.
Based on the TIA, reasonable worst‐case scenario development on the site under an R‐3 zoning is
anticipated to generate 32 trips in the PM peak hour (the period of greatest impact), and 51 trips
under a GO zoning.
Determination of Significant Effect
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant effect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what
constitutes a significant effect. One way in which an amendment will significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility is, if at the end of the planning period, the amendment
will reduce the performance of a transportation facility below the minimum acceptable
performance standard or will worsen the performance of a transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard (OAR 660‐012‐
0060(1)(c)(B) and (C)).
In determining whether there is a significant effect, Level of Service (LOS) is used to identify and
analyze each facility for the minimum level of performance standard. As identified in TransPlan,
LOS A represents the least congested conditions and LOS F the most congested. Under TransPlan
policies, LOS D is the minimum adopted performance standard for the City of Eugene outside of
the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) area and nodal development areas. Although the
applicant’s narrative makes numerous references to CATS, where LOS E is the minimum standard
during peak hour traffic conditions, the subject property is located outside of those boundaries,
which end at 19th Avenue. Therefore, the CATS mobility standards are not applicable here.
As the applicant’s TIA concludes, the proposed plan amendments will not significantly affect
existing transportation facilities under OAR 660‐012‐0060(1)(a), relative to the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, or under OAR 660‐012‐0060(1)(b),
relative to standards implementing a functional classification system.
Regarding subsections OAR 660‐012‐0060(1)(c), the proposed amendments will not significantly
affect existing transportation facilities. As shown in Table 6 of the applicant’s November 18, 2009
revised TIA analysis, the Willamette/24th Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS A in the
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 6 of 16
PC AIS, p 34
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour, and the Willamette Street/24th Place intersection
currently operates at LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table 8 of the
November 18, 2009 materials, both intersections are projected to continue to perform at these
same levels of service in 2015 under the current residential designation, and under the proposed
plan designation. As the proposed amendment will not reduce the performance of an existing or
planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard or worsen
the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to
perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard, no transportation facilities are
significantly affected and therefore, no mitigation is required pursuant to OAR 660‐012‐0060(2).
It is noted that, although Table 8 of applicant’s November 18, 2009 materials shows that the
eastbound movements of the Willamette/24th Place intersection are projected to perform at an
LOS F in 2015 as a result of the amendment, the overall intersection is projected to perform at LOS
A. An important factor in calculating intersection performance is the measure(s) of effectiveness,
which is the basis for determining level of service. For a signalized intersection it is average
stopped delay (vehicles waiting during red displays or the Volume to Capacity ratio), while
unsignalized intersections are evaluated for average total delay (seconds per vehicle summed for
all movements on all approaches and averaged). The applicant’s materials show the Willamette/
24th Place intersection (an unsignalized intersection) delay per approach, per movement, which
shows eastbound left turns at LOS F; however, when the sum of all delay is averaged, the
intersection will achieve LOS A, which is performing within TransPlan standards.
Based on the available evidence, the proposal complies with Statewide Planning Goal 12 as
implemented through OAR 660‐012‐0060.
Goal 13 ‐ Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 is directed at the development of local energy policies and
implementing provisions and does not state requirements with respect to other types of land use
decisions. The proposed site is located in a developed, urban area, where any future development
of the property can make efficient use of energy with direct and efficient access to the existing
transportation system and other urban services. In addition, the applicant’s written statement
(page 8 of the Refinement Plan narrative) describes how the amendment may promote re‐use of
existing development and building materials, thereby conserving energy. To the extent that Goal
13 is applicable to the proposed change in designation, the applicant’s related findings are
incorporated herein by reference. Based on the above, the proposal is consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 ‐ Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
The proposed amendment does not affect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the
subject property is within the City limits. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 7 of 16
PC AIS, p 35
Goal 15 ‐ Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 ‐ Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
affected by the proposed amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the
amendment will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re‐designate the property from High Density Residential to
Commercial will not create an internal conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan. The
applicant has provided findings to show how the proposed amendment is consistent with the
goals and objectives contained in the Metro Plan. Although those goals and objectives are not
directly applicable to the proposal, the applicant has also provided findings (starting at page 13 of
Metro Plan narrative) that describe how the proposal is consistent with four Economic Element
policies, and one Transportation Element policy. Policies that are directly applicable to the
proposed amendment are discussed further below.
A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the UGB for the 20‐year
planning period at the time of Periodic Review. (Policy A.3)
The proposed amendment will convert .5 acre of land designated as High Density Residential land
to the Commercial land designation. As noted in the findings relative to Statewide Goal 10 (under
EC 9.7730(3)(b) above), which are incorporated herein by reference, the subject property was
already developed in non‐residential uses prior to the adoption of the RLS and, therefore, was not
considered as buildable residential land in the RLS. It has remained in office use and has never
been available for a transition into residential development. Further, the proposed Commercial
designation will enable zoning, such as the applicant’s proposed zoning to General Office, that
would still allow for residential development. Based on this, the proposal is consistent with the
above policy.
B. Economic Element
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 8 of 16
PC AIS, p 36
Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing
above average wage and salary levels, an increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in
the standard of living, and utilization our existing comparative advantage in the level of
education and skill of the resident labor force. (Policy B.1)
Encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported capital, entrepreneurial
skills, and the resident labor force. (Policy B.2)
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. (Policy B.6)
Encourage economic activities which strengthen the metropolitan area’s position as a
regional distribution, trade, health and service center. (Policy B.11)
The applicant has submitted findings to support the conclusion that the proposal is consistent with
the above Economic Element policies of the Metro Plan. These policies are not directly applicable
in that they do not constitute mandatory approval criteria, i.e. direction to “demonstrate a
positive interest in” or “encourage” does not provide sufficient objective direction to constitute a
mandatory approval criterion under which an application may be evaluated. Further, Policy B.6
applies only to undeveloped land. However, to the extent that these policies apply to the
proposed amendment, the applicant’s findings (at pages 13, 14, and 15 of the Metro Plan
narrative) are incorporated herein by reference as evidence of consistency with these policies.
The 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS) contains several policies aimed at maintaining
the supply of viable commercial lands. The proposed amendment would change the property's
plan designation from one that supports limited commercial use (High Density Residential) to
another that supports a wider range of commercial uses (Commercial). Both designations would
also allow high density residential construction. As a result, the potential change in the level of
commercial use on this .5‐acre property would have an insignificant impact on the total supply of
commercial land. Several policies in the ECLS support, in general, a Commercial designation of the
subject property. These policies are discussed below.
Promote redevelopment of existing commercial areas and compact, dense growth by
encouraging businesses to revitalize and reuse existing commercial sites. (Policy 6)
Promote neighborhood‐oriented commercial facilities and community commercial areas
rather than additional major retail centers. (Policy 11)
Concentrate development in existing commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on the
rest of the city. (Policy 12)
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 9 of 16
PC AIS, p 37
While these policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria, to the extent that these
policies are applicable to the proposal, the following findings are provided: The proposed
amendment to Commercial would further the reuse and revitalization of an existing medical
health facility as envisioned by Policy 6, as it would allow the site to accommodate a range of
commercial and office development. With regard to Policies 11 and 12, the subject property is
already developed as a medical health facility, and is located in an area of mixed commercial and
residential uses. There are existing commercial uses immediately to the north of the subject
property (an office building also zoned R3) and to the south of the property (zoned C2 Community
Commercial). One block to the south is an area zoned GO; two blocks to the north is a large office
complex zoned GO. The proposed amendment would open the site to a broader range of
neighborhood‐ and community‐commercial uses that have the potential to directly serve the
surrounding neighborhood. This would also encourage the concentration of commercial
development in the South Willamette area, rather than in outlying major retail centers.
Further strip commercial activity along Willamette Street will be discouraged. Strip
commercial is defined as commercial facilities which are largely oriented to automobile
traffic, such as retail uses found in the C‐2 General Commercial District. Small‐scale General
Office District developments are not considered strip commercial (Policy 22).
The proposed amendment will facilitate a zone change to GO General Office and, therefore, will
increase the range of commercial and office uses allowed on the site. The existing facility on the
site is not an auto‐oriented use, and the proposed zoning of GO General Office does not allow
large‐scale, auto‐oriented retail establishments or “strip commercial” uses. Under GO zoning,
retail sales are allowed only when located in a building that already contains office or residential
uses. The proposed amendment will promote continued use of the existing facility for primarily
general office uses, consistent with this policy.
C. Transportation Element
The applicant’s narrative addresses (page 15 Metro Plan narrative) Transportation Policy F.15,
related to motor vehicle level of service standards. As discussed above in the findings under
Statewide Planning Goal 12 – “Transportation,” which are incorporated herein by reference, the
proposal demonstrates compliance with adopted LOS standards and with Statewide Planning Goal
12 – “Transportation.” In demonstrating compliance with adopted LOS standards, the proposal
also is shown to be consistent with Metro Plan policy F.15.
Based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan Amendment criteria.
Refinement Plan Amendments (RA 09‐1)
The applicable refinement plan is the 1988 South Willamette Subarea Study (SWS). Although the
applicant’s application materials make several references to the Central Area Transportation Study
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 10 of 16
PC AIS, p 38
(CATS), CATS is not applicable to this site. The SWS extends south to 24th Place, while the southern
boundary of CATS is 19th Avenue. The SWS was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan,
although it originated out of CATS.
The proposed amendment will amend the SWS text (“Recommendations” page 7) and land use
diagram (Map A‐3) to change the High Density Residential designation of the subject property to
General Office. The specific amendments are discussed further below.
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied to a Refinement Plan amendment:
(1)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a), above, are incorporated herein by reference. Based on those
findings, the amendment is consistent with this approval criterion.
(1)(b) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan.
Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above with respect
to the proposed refinement plan amendments and Metro Plan amendment. The findings under EC
9.7730(3)(b) are incorporated herein by reference. Further, the proposed refinement plan land
use diagram amendment from High Density Residential to General Office is consistent with the
proposed Metro Plan land use diagram amendments from High Density Residential to Commercial.
Based on the above findings, the amendment is consistent with this approval criterion.
(1)(c) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of the
refinement plan.
The proposal to amend the SWS text and land use diagram to re‐designate the subject property
from a designation of High Density Residential to General Office is determined to be consistent
with remaining portions of the refinement plan. The basis of this conclusion is addressed in more
detail below.
The SWS contains five recommendations that are specific to geographic areas of the South
Willamette sub‐area, and not all are directly applicable to the proposed amendment. However,
nothing in the proposal would directly conflict with remaining recommendations. The applicable
recommendations are discussed below.
Recommendation #1: Rezone the lot on the east side of Willamette, south of 24th Place
from C‐2 to General Office, to support the transition from residential north of 24th Place to
commercial south of the subject lot.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 11 of 16
PC AIS, p 39
Although Recommendation #1, to rezone the lot across the street from the subject property to
General Office, is not directly applicable to the proposed amendment, it is relevant in that General
Office is suggested as an appropriate transition between residential and commercial. North of the
subject property is an area zoned R‐3 Limited High Density Residential, to the west (across the
alley) is R‐2 Medium‐Density Residential, and to the south (across 24th Place) is C‐2 Commercial
zoning. The proposed plan amendment to General Office would provide a transition between
residential uses and the start of community commercial uses to the south. Further, the height
limit of 50 feet in the GO zone (the same height limit in the R‐3 zone) maintains a buffer between
residential uses and C‐2 Community Commercial to the south. Based on this, the proposal is not
inconsistent with Recommendation #1.
Recommendation #4: Commercial or office zoning along Willamette between 19th and 24th
Place should not be expanded. The area should appropriately remain in residential uses as
it is designated in the Metro Plan Diagram. The traffic volumes projected for a two‐way
Willamette in this section are approximately 12,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 4,400.
This level of traffic is lower than several other arterial streets which are primarily
residential: 18th Avenue, 11th Avenue between downtown and Garfield Street, and
Patterson south of 24th. Staff feels that the projected increase in traffic volumes does not
support the conversion of residential to office or commercial uses.
Recommendation #5: In recognition of existing mix of low, medium and high density
residential uses and the current zoning on the west side of Willamette between 19th Avenue
and 24th Place, this study recommends that the Metro Plan diagram be refined to reflect a
high density residential designation on parcels currently zoned R‐3 in the area.
As noted previously, the subject property has been developed as a medical health facility with
associated parking since prior to the adoption of the 1988 SWS. It is located in an area of mixed
residential and commercial uses. The block in which the property is located, between 24th Avenue
and 24th Place, contains three parcels, all of which are currently developed in similar medical,
commercial or office uses. To the south of this block are C‐2 Community Commercial uses; to the
north of this block, residential uses begin. A General Office designation for the subject property
would have little visible effect with regard to existing site improvements or the vicinity and, based
on the findings under Statewide Goal 12, the amendment would not result in any significant
change in traffic. While the change in designation would allow a range of office uses on the site,
the R‐3 High Density Residential zone to the north would remain primarily residential under the
proposed amendment. A General Office designation on the subject property does not conflict
with the intent of the original recommendations with regard to residential uses as the property is
not in residential use, nor does it expand commercial uses in the area, as the property is already
developed with a use that would be allowed in the proposed designation. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is consistent with the remaining provisions of Recommendations #4 and #5.
The applicant proposes to amend Recommendations #4 and #5 such that they will not apply to the
subject property, and to clarify that the property should be designated as General Office.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 12 of 16
PC AIS, p 40
Although the applicant’s specific text amendments are not recommended, alternative language is
proposed below to achieve the same purpose, and to distinguish the amendment as applicable
only to the subject property. Proposed changes to Recommendations #4 and #5, and an
additional Recommendation #6 are provided below (additions are underlined and deletions shown
with strikeout).
Recommendation #4: Except for the area described in Recommendation #6, Ccommercial
or office zoning along Willamette between 19th and 24th Place should not be expanded. The
area should appropriately remain in residential uses as it is designated in the Metro Plan
Diagram. The traffic volumes projected for a two‐way Willamette in this section are
approximately 12,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 4,400. This level of traffic is lower
than several other arterial streets which are primarily residential: 18th Avenue, 11th Avenue
between downtown and Garfield Street, and Patterson south of 24th. Staff feels that the
projected increase in traffic volumes does not support the conversion of residential to office
or commercial uses.
Recommendation #5: Except for the area described in Recommendation #6, Iin recognition
of existing mix of low, medium and high density residential uses and the current zoning on
the west side of Willamette between 19th Avenue and 24th Place, this study recommends
that the Metro Plan diagram be refined to reflect a high density residential designation on
parcels currently zoned R‐3 in the area.
Recommendation #6
The property located at the northwest corner of Willamette Street and 24th Place should be
zoned for GO General Office use.
With additional policy Recommendation #6 to address the subject property, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Recommendations #4 and #5 as they will remain, because the
amendment does not change any other aspect of these policy recommendations as they apply to
other properties between 19th Avenue and 24th Place. Based on the above findings, the proposal is
found to be consistent with the remaining provisions of the SWS.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the
time the refinement plan was adopted.
The proposed amendment does not address an error in the publication of the SWS, new inventory
materials related to statewide planning goals, or new or amended state or federal laws,
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 13 of 16
PC AIS, p 41
regulations or policies. Therefore, criteria EC 9.8424(2)(a), (b), and (d) above are not applicable to
this request. To the extent that the applicant’s findings under these criteria are relevant or
applicable, they are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding subsection (c), the proposed amendment has been found to comply with the applicable
Metro Plan and refinement plan approval criteria; therefore, the proposed Metro Plan
amendment constitutes a new community policy in the context of this criterion.
Regarding subsection (e), the proposed refinement plan amendment addresses a change of
circumstances. It is noted that the applicant’s narrative (page 17 of Refinement Plan narrative)
describes several changes in circumstances relative to the proposal. To the extent that those
changed circumstances are addressed by the proposed amendment, the applicant’s findings are
incorporated herein by reference. However, the factors described below are more directly
relevant to the proposed amendment.
The most notable change of circumstances relates to the viability of medical office uses in the R‐3
zone. The 1988 SWS recognized that there was an existing office (“dental clinic”) between 19th
Avenue and 24th Place, the area subject to Recommendations #4 and #5. However, the SWS did
not anticipate certain trends in the local economy that would make a High Density Residential
designation more restrictive for existing permitted, non‐residential uses, specifically the relocation
of Peace Health’s hospital outside of Eugene city limits. While medical health facilities can be
permitted in the existing R‐3 High Density Residential zone, general office uses are not allowed. In
addition, subsequent amendments to the land use code require that non‐residential uses in
residential zones, such as medical health facilities and churches, comply with minimum residential
densities. These density requirements can be a barrier to major upgrades or conversions of
existing non‐residential uses, further limiting the ability of these non‐residential uses to adapt over
time. The applicant notes (page 6 of Refinement Plan narrative), that “Even as the applicant is
unable to market the property for other types of office uses, existing and new medical
development is being drawn toward and is relocating to the area of the new Riverbend Hospital in
Springfield.” The applicant further notes (page 11 of the Metro Plan narrative): “It is necessary to
expand the types of Office/Professional uses that can utilize the existing office building as demand
for medical facilities in the Eugene area shrinks.” This supports the conclusion that there has been
a change in circumstances that could not have been anticipated at the time of the SWS adoption.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment addresses changed circumstances that were not
anticipated at the time the SWS recommendations were adopted. It is, therefore, recommended
that text changes and map changes be adopted that address these changed circumstances. The
applicant has provided proposed text amendments. However, it is necessary to provide
alternative language to adequately clarify the status of the subject property as distinct from other
properties addressed in the SWS recommendations. Proposed changes to Recommendations #4
and #5, and an additional Recommendation #6 are provided above under the findings at EC
9.8424(1)(c).
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 14 of 16
PC AIS, p 42
Based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the refinement plan amendment
criteria.
Zone Change (Z 09‐3)
The applicant proposes to rezone a .5 acre property that is currently zoned R‐3 High Density
Residential, to GO General Office. EC 9.8865 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic)
be applied to a Zone Change.
(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.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment
to re‐designate .5 acre of High Density Residential to Commercial. The findings under EC
9.7730(3)(b), above, are incorporated herein by reference. Those findings address the applicant’s
consistency with the Metro Plan.
(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.
Approval of the zone change is dependent upon approval of the refinement plan diagram and text
amendments to re‐designate .5 acre of High Density Residential to General Office. The findings
under EC 9.8424(1)(c), are incorporated herein by reference. Those findings address the
application’s consistency with the applicable South Willamette Subarea Study.
(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.
The discussion of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 – “Public Facilities and Services,”
and Goal 12 – “Transportation” in the findings regarding the Statewide Planning Goals (see below)
are incorporated herein by reference. With the findings established and referenced herein, the
proposal complies with this criterion.
(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.
The siting requirements apply to C‐1 Neighborhood Commercial and C‐4 Commercial/Industrial.
There are no applicable siting requirements for the proposed GO General Office zone; therefore,
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 15 of 16
PC AIS, p 43
this criterion does not apply.
(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 NR zone is not requested. Therefore, the above criterion is not applicable.
Conclusion:
Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the above findings, the
proposal is found to be consistent with the applicable approval criteria.
Findings – South Willamette Properties – January 11, 2010 Page 16 of 16
PC AIS, p 44
PC AIS, p 45
PC AIS, p 46
PC AIS, p 47
PC AIS, p 48
PC AIS, p 49
PC AIS, p 50
PC AIS, p 51
PC AIS, p 52
PC AIS, p 53
PC AIS, p 54
PC AIS, p 55
PC AIS, p 56
PC AIS, p 57
PC AIS, p 58
PC AIS, p 59
PC AIS, p 60
PC AIS, p 61
PC AIS, p 62
PC AIS, p 63
PC AIS, p 64
PC AIS, p 65
PC AIS, p 66
PC AIS, p 67
PC AIS, p 68
PC AIS, p 69
PC AIS, p 70
PC AIS, p 71
PC AIS, p 72
PC AIS, p 73
PC AIS, p 74
PC AIS, p 75
PC AIS, p 76
PC AIS, p 77
PC AIS, p 78
PC AIS, p 79
PC AIS, p 80
PC AIS, p 81
PC AIS, p 82
PC AIS, p 83
PC AIS, p 84
PC AIS, p 85
PC AIS, p 86
PC AIS, p 87
PC AIS, p 88
PC AIS, p 89
PC AIS, p 90
PC AIS, p 91
PC AIS, p 92
PC AIS, p 93
PC AIS, p 94
PC AIS, p 95
PC AIS, p 96
PC AIS, p 97
PC AIS, p 98
PC AIS, p 99
PC AIS, p 100
PC AIS, p 101
PC AIS, p 102
PC AIS, p 103
PC AIS, p 104
PC AIS, p 105
PC AIS, p 106
PC AIS, p 107
PC AIS, p 108
PC AIS, p 109
PC AIS, p 110
PC AIS, p 111
PC AIS, p 112
PC AIS, p 113
PC AIS, p 114
PC AIS, p 115
PC AIS, p 116
PC AIS, p 117
PC AIS, p 118
PC AIS, p 119
Get email alerts for Eugene
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.