Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 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 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, JULY 27, 2015 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.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. SOUTH WILLAMETTE SPECIAL AREA ZONE: DELIBERATIONS SUMMARY Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, 541-682-5697 gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us 11:50 a.m. III. REST-HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK, METRO PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE: DELIBERATIONS AND FINAL ACTION (City files MA 15-1, Z 15-1) Lead City Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488 heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us 1:15 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffrey Mills; Breanna Nicolello; William Randall (Chair); Kristen Taylor  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 27, 2015 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Heather O’Donnell, Planning Division Subject: Deliberations on Rest-Haven Memorial Park Re-designation & Zone Change (City files MA 15-1, Z 15-1) ACTION REQUESTED Hold a Planning Commission work session to deliberate and provide a recommendation to the Eugene City Council on the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change for the Rest-Haven Memorial Park property. BRIEFING STATEMENT On July 14, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a privately-initiated, site- specific Metro Plan Amendment and concurrent Zone Change for Rest-Haven Memorial Park. The subject property includes two tax lots located at 3900 Willamette Street, between 39th Avenue and Brae Burn Drive (see Attachment A). As addressed in the applicant’s materials, the current owners seek to change the Metro Plan diagram designation (the City’s land use blueprint map) and zoning of the subject property so that the entire property is designated Low Density Residential and corresponding zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. These applications are briefly summarized below: Rest-Haven Memorial Park Map & tax lot numbers: 1803180000300 & 1803074302100 (about 27.63 acres for cemetery, 46.27 acres for new housing) Application Total Current acres Proposed acres (File no.) acres Metro Plan Low Density Amendment Parks & Open Space 73.9 73.9 Residential (MA 15-1) 73.9 R-1 Low Density No Zone Change 46.27 R-1 Low Density Residential change (Z 15-1) Residential PL Public Land 27.63 27.63 Metro Plan Amendment (MA 15-1): amends the Metro Plan diagram to change the adopted plan designation from Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential. PC Agenda - Page 1 Zone Change (Z 15-1): rezones the site from being split zoned PL Public Land (northern portion) and R-1 Low Density Residential (southern portion) to entirely zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. No overlay zones are proposed. BACKGROUND The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a public hearing on July 14, 2015 to consider the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendments and corresponding zone change. A total of 6 people testified, one in favor, two neutral, and three opposed. The record was not requested to be left open and the Planning Commission closed the record at the hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commissions asked staff to respond to several issues raised in testimony. Staff responses are provided in Attachment B. For the preliminary findings, refer to the draft included in the July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting materials. RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS Following deliberations, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council, to approve the proposed Metro Plan amendment and corresponding zone change. ATTACHMENTS A. Maps of Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change Boundaries B. Preliminary Findings C. Staff Response to Public Testimony / Planning Commission D. Park buffer map E. July 14, 2015 public hearing notice FOR MORE INFORMATION Heather O’Donnell at 541‐682‐5488 or heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us Land use application website: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationSearch Planning Commission website: www.eugene-or.gov/pc PC Agenda - Page 2  Attachment A Rest Haven Memorial Park (Z 15-1 & MA 15-1) Existing Metro Plan Designation Metro Plan Land Use Designation Change from Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential 18-03-07-43/02100 & 18-03-18-00/00300 WATKINS LN E 39TH AVE MO O W 39TH AVE NR E WILLAMETTE ST ST E 39TH PL R DENSMO E RD RE ST OAK ST -H AV EN M EM O W 40TH AVE RI AL E 40TH AVE PA RK NORMANDY WAY O AK CT OAK ST URN DR BRAE B N OD L ST INWO RL P EA Subject Site Low Density Residential Parks and Open Space PC Agenda - Page 3 ´  Attachment A Rest Haven Memorial Park (Z 15-1 & MA 15-1) Proposed Metro Plan Designation Metro Plan Land Use Designation Change from Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential 18-03-07-43/02100 & 18-03-18-00/00300 WATKINS LN E 39TH AVE MO O W 39TH AVE NR E WILLAMETTE ST ST E 39TH PL R DENSMO E RD RE ST OAK ST -H AV EN M EM O W 40TH AVE RI AL E 40TH AVE PA RK NORMANDY WAY O AK CT OAK ST URN DR BRAE B N OD L ST INWO L AR PE Subject Site Low Density Residential Parks and Open Space PC Agenda - Page 4 ´  Rest Haven Memorial Park (Z 15-1 & MA 15-1) Attachment A Existing Zoning Zone Change from PL Public Land to R-1 Low Density Residential 18-03-07-43/02100 & 18-03-18-00/00300 W 38TH AVE KNOB HILL LN WATKINS LN E 39TH AVE MO NR W 39TH AVE O WILLAMETTE ST E ST E 39TH PL R DENSMO E RD RE ST OAK ST -H AV EN M EM O W 40TH AVE RI AL E 40TH AVE PA RK NORMANDY WAY O AK CT OAK ST URN DR BRAE B N OD L ST INWO L AR PE Subject Site PL Public Land R-1 Low-Density Residential PC Agenda - Page 5 ´  Rest Haven Memorial Park (Z 15-1 & MA 15-1) Attachment A Proposed Zoning Zone Change from PL Public Land to R-1 Low Density Residential 18-03-07-43/02100 & 18-03-18-00/00300 W 38TH AVE KNOB HILL LN WATKINS LN E 39TH AVE MO NR W 39TH AVE O WILLAMETTE ST E ST E 39TH PL R DENSMO E RD RE ST OAK ST -H AV EN M EM O W 40TH AVE RI AL E 40TH AVE PA RK NORMANDY WAY O AK CT OAK ST URN DR BRAE B N OD L ST INWO L AR PE Subject Site R-1 Low-Density Residential PL Public Land PC Agenda - Page 6 ´  Attachment B Attachment C Exhibit __ Findings for City File MA 15‐1 & Z 15‐1 Rest‐Haven Memorial Park Overview The subject property is the Rest‐Haven Memorial Park. The proposed Metro Plan re‐designation and zone change includes the following: Rest‐Haven Memorial Park Map & tax lot numbers: 1803180000300 & 1803074302100 (about 27.63 acres for cemetery, 46.27 acres for new housing) Total Application Current acres Proposed acres acres Metro Plan Parks & Open Space 73.9 Low Density Residential 73.9 Amendment R‐1 Low Density No 73.9 46.27 R‐1 Low Density Zone Change Residential change Residential PL Public Land 27.63 27.63 The following findings address the required criteria for the proposed metro plan amendment and zone change. Metro Plan Amendments (file no. MA 15‐1) The Metro Plan land use diagram is proposed for amendment for the entire 74 acre property, from Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential designation. Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7730 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold italics) be applied to Metro Plan amendments: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable 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 which insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The amendments do not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these amendments complies with Goal 1 because it is consistent with 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 July 14, 2015. The applicant also held a neighborhood‐applicant meeting which was noticed to the affected neighborhood organization and property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject PC Agenda - Page 7  Attachment B property, per EC 9.7007. Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on June 9, 2015 the City mailed notice of the proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. Referrals concerning the pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Springfield, Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Association (which at the time was Southeast Neighbors), and to City departments. On June 12, 2015, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property and the Southeast Neighbors and notice was also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5). On June 24, 2015, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register‐Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. The Planning Commission public hearing was held on July 14, 2015, with deliberations held on {INSERT DATE} and action take on {INSERT DATE}. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Eugene City Council will hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval, modification, or denial of the plan amendments and zone changes, scheduled for {INSERT DATE}. The process for adopting these amendments 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 basis for such decisions and actions. The Eugene land use code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these amendments. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these plan amendments with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to Lane County, Springfield and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 2 required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 ‐ Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply. Goal 4 ‐ Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 ‐ Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and Findings ‐ 2 PC Agenda - Page 8  Attachment B protect natural and scenic resources. OAR 660‐023‐0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. While the subject property does include a Goal 5 protected stream, these map amendments do not create or amend the City’s list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 ‐ Air, Water and land Resource 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 map amendments do not affect the City’s ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6 does not apply. 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 the following natural hazards: floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. 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 wildfires or tsunamis. Other hazards can be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building codes and building techniques. The map amendments do not affect the City’s restrictions on development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not apply. 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. Goal 8 also allows, but does not Findings ‐ 3 PC Agenda - Page 9  Attachment B require, the City to create an inventory of recreational needs. To the extent that Goal 8 is applicable, the City has two documents related to long‐range parks planning: the Parks, Recreational and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) and its list of implementing projects in the PROS Project and Priority Plan. The PROS Project and Priority Plan is adopted and therefore provides some direction to the City regarding recreational needs. The subject property is currently designated Parks and Open Space. The City has consulted these documents regarding these sites and determined the following: This 74 acre site is privately owned by the Rest‐Haven Memorial Park. The property owners have indicated that approximately 27.63 acres is needed for existing or future cemetery use and they would like to make the remaining 46.27 acres available for residential uses. The PROS Project and Priority Plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in this vicinity; however the PROS Project and Priority Plan states that the location of proposed acquisitions are approximate and subject to change based on land availability and public involvement. The property owner has indicated no interest in selling any portion of their site for parks at this time. Regardless, City parks are allowed in LDR/R‐1 therefore re‐designation of the entire site to LDR would not preclude a future park nor affect the City’s provisions for or access to recreational areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. To the extent Statewide Planning Goal 8 applies, the amendments are consistent. 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. Goal 9 requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial and industrial land relative to community economic objectives. The 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 complete an “Economic Opportunities Analysis.” OAR 660‐009‐0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660‐009‐0020. Finally OAR 660‐009‐0025 requires that cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR 660‐009‐0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9 apply “at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3)).” The Eugene Commercial Lands Study (1992) and the Industrial Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report (1993) were adopted by the City of Eugene as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 9 and the corresponding Administrative Rule. The proposed map amendments do not add or subtract any commercial or industrial land from the adopted inventories; therefore Goal 9 is not applicable. Goal 10 ‐ Housing. 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 Findings ‐ 4 PC Agenda - Page 10  Attachment B 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 Residential Lands Study (1999) was adopted by the City of Eugene as a refinement of the Metro Plan, and complies with the requirements of Goal 10 and the corresponding Administrative Rule. According to the 1999 Residential Lands Study (RLS), there is sufficient buildable residential land to meet the identified land need. The subject site is proposed to be re‐designated to a residential designation. The RLS identifies the undeveloped residential land supply (inventory) based on the designation or zoning and the size of the parcel. Some demand was also assumed to be accommodated through redevelopment and infill. This subject site was not identified as part of the RLS since although it was partially zoned R‐1, it was not in vacant or in agricultural or timber use at that time; therefore this re‐designation does not reduce the RLS inventory and is consistent with Goal 10. However, the proposal will add approximately 46 acres of housing capacity to the existing land supply (excluding any protected area). Based on the above, the amendments are 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 amendments do not affect the City’s provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply. Goal 12‐ Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660‐012‐0060) contains the following requirement: (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 Findings ‐ 5 PC Agenda - Page 11  Attachment B 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 proposed map amendments do not change the functional classification of a transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system. Therefore, the amendments do not have a significant effect under (a) or (b). In regards to (c), the type of development currently permitted through the existing plan designation and zoning will change for the subject property. As detailed in the following findings, the applicant’s analysis indicates that: (A) the types and levels of travel and access are consistent with the functional classification of existing transportation facilities; (B) none of the transportation facilities studied will be degraded beyond their identified performance standard identified in TransPlan as a result of the proposed amendments; and, (C) none of the existing transportation facilities are otherwise projected to fall below the performance standards identified in TransPlan. To address the TPR, the applicant submitted findings and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), dated April 24, 2015, which was prepared by the consulting firm of Branch Engineering, Inc. Staff clarifies that this is not a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review pursuant to EC 9.8650, although one is expected to be provided at the time of a new development application. The TIA responds to comments from the City provided during the application completeness review process. The TIA evaluates the current performance of impacted transportation facilities, the performance of these facilities in 2027 with the proposed amendments and the performance of the facilities in 2027 without the proposed amendments. Since there are no transportation facilities planned for the study area, the applicant’s analysis considers the impacts on only the existing transportation facilities within the study area. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Land Uses In comparing the existing and the proposed land uses, the applicant’s TIA assumes in both scenarios that the area currently used or platted as cemetery will remain cemetery. For the unused portion of the property currently designated POS and zoned R‐1, the applicant’s TIA uses regional park as the existing land use and uses a “reasonable worst‐case” scenario of single‐family housing limited to five homes per acre (per the South Hills Study policy) for the proposed use (Table 3 of the TIA). According to the applicant’s TIA, the number of PM peak hour trips projected to be generated by development allowed under the reasonable worst case scenario are as follows: Rest‐Haven Projected PM Peak Projected PM Peak Difference Memorial Park Trips Existing Trips Proposed between land POS designation & R‐ LDR designation & use trips 1/PL zone R‐1 zone Existing land uses: Cemetery 23 Findings ‐ 6 PC Agenda - Page 12  Attachment B regional park 9 Proposed land uses: Cemetery 23 single‐family 231 residential (5 homes per acre) +222 Because the trips generated by the proposed land use exceed the trips of the existing land use (222 more trips), an analysis of whether any applicable transportation facilities will be “significantly impacted” by the development is necessary. City staff was consulted in the scoping and development of the applicant’s TIA and generally agrees that the analysis methods used in the applicant’s TIA are acceptable. The Applicant’s TIA included analysis of the following existing transportation facilities: Transportation Facilities Street Classification Jurisdiction Willamette Street Minor Arterial City of Eugene Donald Street Major Collector City of Eugene Crest Drive Local City of Eugene E. 33rd Avenue Neighborhood Collector City of Eugene W. 39th Avenue Neighborhood Collector City of Eugene E. 40th Avenue Major Collector City of Eugene 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, different measurements are used to identify and analyze each facility for the minimum level of performance standard. Level of Service D (LOS D) is the minimum acceptable performance standard for the transportation facilities within the applicant’s study area. As identified in TransPlan, LOS A represents the least congested conditions and LOS F the most congested. The end of the planning period in the City’s adopted transportation system plan (TransPlan) is 2027. Accordingly, the applicant’s analysis under OAR 660‐012‐0060 is for the 2027 planning period. Regarding subsections OAR 660‐012‐0060(1)(c)(A),(1)(c)(B) and (1)(c)(C), the applicant’s TIA analyzed Findings ‐ 7 PC Agenda - Page 13  Attachment B the projected performance of intersections in the study area under four development scenarios during the planning horizon. The analysis shows that the proposed map amendments will not significantly affect existing transportation facilities because, as shown in the following table, none of the intersections are projected to perform below the minimum standard of LOS D. Specifically, the proposal will not result in the types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility per (1)(c)(A), 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 per (1)(c)(B), or 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 (1)(c)(C). Since no facilities will be significantly affected, no mitigation is required. Transportation Facilities 2027 2027 Planning 2027 Planning 2015 “Background” Horizon Horizon “Build‐ Street “Existing (no build‐out on “build‐out” with the out” with Conditions” the subject site) Existing Zone and Proposed Zone and POS designation Use Willamette LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B Street At Donald Street Willamette LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B Street At Crest Drive Willamette LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS D Street At E. 33rd Avenue Willamette LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C Street At W. 39th Avenue Willamette LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS C Street at E. 40th Avenue E. 40th Avenue at LOS A LOS B LOS B LOS B Donald Street Willamette LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C Street at site access Because the proposed amendment will not result in traffic generation that exceeds allowable performance standard, the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 12. Based on the above findings, the plan amendment and zone change is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Findings ‐ 8 PC Agenda - Page 14  Attachment B Goal 13 ‐ Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13 does not apply. Goal 14 ‐ Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments do not affect the City’s provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to urban uses. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. 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 amendments do not contain any changes that affect the Willamette River Greenway regulations, 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 effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. Applicable Metro Plan Policies The following policies from the Metro Plan (identified below in italics) are applicable to these amendments. Based on the findings provided below, the amendments are consistent with and supported by the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies 1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside the UGB. (Policy 1) As stated in the response to Statewide Goal 11 (above), the re‐designations will not affect the city’s ability to serve the area inside the UGB. The glossary of the Metro Plan defines “compact urban growth” as follows: The filling in of vacant and underutilized lands in the UGB, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB. Consistent with this policy, re‐designation of Rest‐Haven will make it easier to do housing or other Findings ‐ 9 PC Agenda - Page 15  Attachment B low density residential uses on a portion of the cemetery property that is no longer needed for future cemetery uses, inside the UGB. A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element Residential Density Policies A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed infill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods. Consistent with this policy, the proposed re‐designation will allow for low density residential development on a portion of land no longer needed for future cemetery uses, within an existing low density residential neighborhood. Consideration of specific development impacts will occur at the time of future land use application or application of zoning development standards. The applicant cited Residential Land Use and Housing Element policies A.10 and A.11 as applicable policies supporting the proposed amendments. Staff finds that these policies are not applicable because they are related to planning for higher density housing. If they are found to be applicable, they are met as indicated in the applicant’s written statement which is incorporated herein by reference. Housing Type and Tenure Policies A.17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost and location. Consistent with policy A.17, the re‐designation provides an opportunity for more low density residential housing types on the Rest‐Haven site and within the neighborhood. The applicant cited Residential Land Use and Housing Element policy A.19 as an applicable policy supporting the proposed amendments. Staff finds that this policy is not applicable because it is related to planning for housing near downtown. If it is found to be applicable, it is met as indicated in the applicant’s written statement which is incorporated herein by reference. A.30 Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to accommodate affordable housing with the community’s goals to maintain a compact urban form. Affordable housing is defined in the Metro Plan as housing priced so that a household at or below median income pays no more than 30 percent of its total income on housing and utilities. The proposed re‐designation creates more land for low density residential inside the current UGB with existing or planned services and transit. Developing housing within the UGB can generally reduce development and transportation costs and may make housing more affordable. Findings ‐ 10 PC Agenda - Page 16  Attachment B E. Transportation Element and J. Energy Element The applicant cited Transportation policy F.3 and Energy policies J.7 and J.8 as applicable policies supporting the proposed amendments. Staff finds that these policies are not applicable because they are related to planning for higher density housing. If they are found to be applicable, they are met as indicated in the applicant’s written statement which is incorporated herein by reference. Metro Plan Amendment Conclusion Based on the above findings, the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with EC 9.7730. Zone Change (file no. Z 15‐1) The proposal includes rezoning of approximately 27.63 acres of the 73.9 acre site from PL Public Land to R‐1 Low Density Residential, so that the entire property will be zoned R‐1 Low Density Residential. Most of that property for rezoning lies within the portion of the property currently in active cemetery use or platted with cemetery lots. EC 9.8865 requires that the zone change proposals meet the following approval criteria (listed in bold and italic). Findings are provided below with respect to each of the applicable criteria. (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. Some of the policies addressed in the Metro Plan amendment findings are applicable here, and to the extent they are applicable the findings under EC 9.7730(3)(b) are incorporated herein by reference as demonstration of consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies. (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 Metro Plan land use diagram amendments. The applicable refinement plan, the South Hills Study, does not have an adopted land use diagram. Therefore the proposal does not have to address consistency or amend a refinement plan land use diagram. The applicant also address the proposed re‐designation and rezone with respect to the South Hills Study Policies (1‐3) regarding property over 901’ elevation, density, and criteria regarding when certain land use applications are applicable (such as subdivision, site review or planned unit development). The applicant states that these policies are either not applicable to the subject property or may be applicable as determined at the time of development. Staff generally concurs with this and the applicant’s findings are incorporated herein by reference. Specifically, staff concurs that whether or not development on the site triggers the need for a subdivision, site review or planned unit development is a question to be determined at the time of development and therefore an overlay zone requiring any of these applications is not necessary. Staff further concurs that there is no policy basis in the applicable adopted plans that call for the imposition of an overlay at the time Findings ‐ 11 PC Agenda - Page 17  Attachment B of rezoning. Based on the above, the adopted refinement plan is either not applicable or the proposal is consistent. (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 findings of compliance with Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services, and Goal 12 – Transportation above 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: (f) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. There are no applicable siting requirements for the R‐1 zone; therefore, 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 or applicable in this instance. Therefore, the above criterion is inapplicable. Zone Change Conclusion Based on the above findings, compliance with the zone change approval criteria of EC 9.8865 is met. Findings ‐ 12 PC Agenda - Page 18  Attachment C Memorandum Date: July 27, 2015 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Heather O’Donnell, Planning Division Subject: Staff Response to Testimony/Planning Commission – Rest-Haven Memorial Park Metro Plan Amendment & Zone Change applications (City files MA 15-1, Z 15-1) This memo addresses major themes that have been raised by the Planning Commission or in public testimony at the July 14, 2015 public hearing. The issues are identified in bold below, followed by staff responses. 1. Open Space / Park Availability The Planning Commission asked several questions regarding the availability of parks in the area in light of the proposed re-designation. As the Planning Commission deliberates on this matter, it’s important to keep the following factors in mind: • The objective of Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) is “to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors…” As noted in the draft findings, the primary objective is to provide recreational facilities in the non-urban areas of the state. Further, the state does not require cities to establish an inventory of recreational land/facilities, as is required for residential and employment lands. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that Goal 8 speaks at a very broad level. • The PROS plan has two distinct pieces; the Comprehensive Plan and the Project and Priority Plan. Only the Project and Priority Plan is adopted, however, it was adopted essentially as a financial tool related to Park System Development Charges (SDC’s). While this plan does show a need in the vicinity of the subject property, staff agrees with the applicant that this plan was not adopted as a land use plan, and therefore, cannot be relied upon in making findings of compliance for this land use application. Staff would recommend the findings under Goal 8 be revised as follows to make this clear (new text in italic): 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. Goal 8 also allows, but does not require, the City to create an inventory of recreational needs. To the extent that Goal 8 is applicable, the City has two documents related to long-range parks planning: the Parks, Recreational and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) and its list of implementing projects in the PROS Project and Priority Plan. Only the Project and Priority Plan has been adopted however, it was not adopted as a land use plan. Therefore it cannot be used as a basis for determining compliance with the applicable criteria in this case. Acknowledging this limitation, the City has consulted these documents and determined the following: PC Agenda - Page 19  Attachment C This 74 acre site is privately owned by the Rest-Haven Memorial Park. The property owners have indicated that approximately 27.63 acres is needed for existing or future cemetery use and they would like to make the remaining 46.27 acres available for residential uses. The PROS Project and Priority Plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in this vicinity; however the PROS Project and Priority Plan states that the location of proposed acquisitions are approximate and subject to change based on land availability and public involvement. The property owner has not indicated any interest in selling any portion of their site for parks at this time. Regardless, City parks are allowed in LDR/R-1 therefore re-designation of the entire site to LDR would not preclude a future park nor affect the City’s provisions for or access to recreational areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. To the extent Statewide Planning Goal 8 applies, the amendments are consistent. • Staff had contacted the applicant’s consultant prior to issuance of the findings regarding interest in selling a portion for a park, to which the consultant confirmed there was no interest at this time; the PROS Plan indicates property owner willingness as a key criterion when prioritizing acquisition opportunities. Likewise, Parks staff has not determined whether this site is suitable for a neighborhood park. • Re-designation and rezoning does not prohibit this site from future park acquisition as City parks are permitted in R-1 zoning. Further, it is not uncommon for acquisition opportunities to occur as part of, or following the processing of a development application. • It is recognized that cemeteries and other similar uses often have a semi-public feel to them and are utilized by the public unless otherwise restricted by the property owner. It is also recognized that the subject site is private property and not in public ownership; Responses to specific questions: • Show a ¼ mile radius around existing parks for gaps in parks service areas. The Planning Commission requested staff show a ¼ mile radius around near-by parks on the map staff used during the public hearing presentation in order to identify whether there are gaps in park coverage. This same map, with the ¼ mile radius around parks added is Attachment D. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this map is staff’s representation of parks within a walkable distance (e.g. ¼ mile). This map does not represent actual service coverage areas, or specific needs. Parks planning use a range of specific measures for determining park service coverage areas. As such, staff would caution the planning commission from relying on this map as a depiction of any service gap. • Are there other areas that could meet the identified park need? An analysis of whether there are other sites in the area that could meet the PROS Project and Priority Plan’s identified neighborhood park need for this area would need to be completed by Parks and Open Space staff and was not done given this is a quasi-judicial process. That effort is currently underway as part of the new Park and Open Space Planning project. As previously mentioned, the opportunity for this site to meet that need does not go away because the site is re-designated or rezoned. Additionally, as noted at the hearing, property owners may end up continuing to use the cemetery portion of the site if the property owner continues to allow it. • If this application is approved, what options are there to enable future park sites in the area? As mentioned above, Parks staff are in the process of preparing a new plan for its park and open space needs. So ideally, the neighborhood park needs for this area will get further attention through that process. This may include further criteria for site selection, as well as additional proposed actions. Secondly, there may be subsequent opportunities for the city to engage the property owner as part of, or following submittal of a development plan for the site. 2 PC Agenda - Page 20  Attachment C 2. Metro Plan policy A.30 regarding affordable housing. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on policy A.30 and to elaborate on whether this policy applies to this proposal. A.30 Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to accommodate affordable housing with the community’s goals to maintain a compact urban form. It is arguable that this policy is indirectly applicable if at all since no specific development application (e.g. affordable or market rate housing) is proposed as part of these applications. While staff believes the current findings are adequate, Staff would also support revising the finding to state (new text in italic): “The applicant cited Residential Land Use and Housing Element policy A.30 as an applicable policy supporting the proposed amendments. Staff finds that this policy is not directly applicable because no specific housing development is proposed at this time. To the extent it is found to be applicable, it is met as indicated in the applicant’s written statement which is incorporated herein by reference.” Alternatively, if the Planning Commission finds this policy is directly applicable, staff recommends the following revised finding (additional text in italic): “Affordable housing is defined in the Metro Plan as housing priced so that a household at or below median income pays no more than 30 percent of its total income on housing and utilities. While no specific development is proposed at this time, the proposal creates more land for housing which in turn creates the opportunity for any type of housing, affordable or market-rate, while at the same time maintains a compact urban form by creating opportunity for housing to infill on a site where no housing was planned.” 3. Public Notice / Availability of Materials for Review Planning Commission asked for a copy of the public hearing notice and for clarification regarding the public testimony questioning the adequacy of the public notice. Attached is a copy of the public notice that was mailed to all residents and owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Responses to the concerns about the notice and availability of materials for review are as follows: • Proposed use was not included: The approval criteria do not require the applicant to be more specific, and if they had been, the proposed use would not be locked in at this stage. Understandably, there is interest in what will actually be built on the site, but a specific use was not identified in the notice since this is a higher-level question of whether low density residential uses in general make sense. • EC 9.7735 is cited as the approval criteria: While a Metro Plan Amendment application has to comply with all applicable sections of the Metro Plan Amendment procedures at Eugene Code (EC) 9.7730 through 9.7750 (such as procedures, submittal requirements), our public notices are required to list the applicable criteria. EC 9.7735 is the section that lists the specific approval criteria, which is why this section was cited in the notice. • The website address cited is wrong: While the web address was incorrect, it did redirect users to the correct site. While we attempt to provide several options to get information about the application, website addresses are not required to be included in the public notice or any other materials. • Clarify other options for reviewing materials: The public notice states that all materials are available at the Planning and Development Department and includes the Department’s address. My name, phone and email are also included on the notice for more information. • Clarify neighborhood group notice: After the applications had already been submitted, the redrawing of the neighborhood association boundaries resulted in the subject property changing from being within the Southeast Neighbors (SEN) to being within the Southwest Hills 3 PC Agenda - Page 21  Attachment C Neighborhood Association (SHiNA, formerly Crest Drive Citizens). As such, a referral for the application was sent to SEN. In checking with the SEN president regarding if they had any questions on the application, she said that SEN & SHiNA were coordinating on this transition and SEN had already forwarded the application information to SHiNA. I contacted the SHiNA president to see if they had any questions and did not receive any. This occurred prior to issuance of the July 14th Planning Commission public hearing materials/staff report. 4. Traffic The Planning Commission asked for clarification regarding the following traffic related issues: • Will a “significant” amount of traffic be generated from this Redesignation? The Planning Commission questioned how the amount of traffic projected by the proposal could not be significant as it is characterized in the findings. The term “significant” is a term of Oregon land use law regarding the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). To summarize, the TPR asks whether the future traffic anticipated as a result of the proposed map amendment or zone change will have a “significant impact” on nearby transportation facilities, and if so, how will those impacts be mitigated. A “significant” impact means that the traffic anticipated as a result of the proposed change will cause a transportation facility (e.g. intersection) to exceed the vehicle capacity for which it is designed. In this case, as found in the Goal 12 findings (pgs. 5-8), the traffic analysis indicates that the traffic anticipated at full buildout of the site with the proposed change and surrounding area, will not “significantly impact” any nearby traffic facilities. Given the size of the property, a notable amount of traffic is projected from a subdivision; up to 220 new vehicle trips during the peak hour is estimated. So the traffic would clearly be noticeable, but the streets in the area will not exceed the vehicle capacity for which they are designed. Additionally, at the time a specific development application is submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis per EC 9.8650 may be required. For instance, a development generating 100 or more vehicle trips during the peak hour would require a TIA. A TIA is a more fine-grained level of traffic analysis than the TPR analysis, and can consider improvements such as for intersections, safety, and pedestrians and bicycles. • Location of housing where transit is limited. Staff is aware that the site is regularly served by transit along Willamette Street. Staff would expect that additional housing in the area would further contribute to strong transit service in the area. • How are traffic impacts from other land use reviews underway in the area reconciled? As is sometimes the case, land use applications for the same area may be being considered around the same time. TPR analysis is specific in that existing or planned facilities are to be analyzed for impacts; “planned” meaning facilities already adopted in the City’s transportation system plan. The analysis also includes looking at existing vehicle trips and vehicle trips from sites planned for but not built out yet to their current land use designation. So, changes that may occur due to other land use applications under review but not yet approved cannot be considered in a quasi-judicial land use application such as this one. 5. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Triggers The Planning Commission asked what type of development would require a PUD land use approval. If the property is re-designated and rezoned to Low Density Residential, future uses in the R-1 zone that would require a PUD approval include but are not limited to multi-family (e.g. market rate apartments) and neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, the PUD procedures include additional triggers for a PUD: 4 PC Agenda - Page 22  Attachment C 9.8305 Applicability. PUD provisions shall be applied when any of the following conditions exist: (1) The proposal is subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to an adopted refinement plan, including but not limited to, property within the boundary of the South Hills Study where all or a portion of a development site is: (a) Between an elevation of 500 feet and 701 feet, and the development site is at least 4 acres with areas of the development site containing slopes that exceed 20%. (b) On property above 701 feet in elevation, except partitions that do not include the creation of a public street, unless an alternate review procedure is approved pursuant to EC 9.9630(3)(a). (c) Above an elevation of 900 feet, except for a land division undertaken by or on behalf of a governmental entity in order to preserve, manage, or expand park, open space, or natural resource areas. (2) The property is zoned with a /PD overlay zone. (3) One or more land uses proposed for the site are subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to the zoning. (4) When requested by the property owner. The subject property is within the South Hills Study boundary, so EC 9.8305(1) would apply. 6. Allowable Uses for Current Designation & Zone Versus Proposed Public comment stated that it has not been made clear what the difference in allowable uses is between the existing and proposed plan designation/zoning. The following includes examples of the types of uses permitted under the existing and proposed plan designation/zoning for the portion of the property not in or platted for cemetery use 1. Proposed: Existing: plan designation Low Density Use plan designation Parks & Open Space Residential zoning R-1 Low Density Residential zoning R-1 Low Density Residential Single-family Not allowed because housing would be Allowed because housing would be detached inconsistent with a Parks and Open Space consistent with a Low Density Residential housing designation Metro Plan designation subdivision Multi-family Not allowed because it is only permitted Allowed through a PUD because housing housing through a PUD which would require a would be consistent with a Low Density (market rate)residential Metro Plan designation Residential Metro Plan designation Controlled Allowed because current regulations do Allowed because current regulations do Income & not require consideration of the Metro Plan not require consideration of the Metro Plan Rent (CIR) designation. The allowable density range is designation. The allowable density range is Housing higher for CIR housing; up to 150% of the higher for CIR housing; up to 150% of the maximum (or up to 21 homes per net acre) maximum (or up to 21 homes per net acre) Neighborhood Not allowed because it is only permitted Allowed through a PUD because a Low Commercial through a PUD which would require a Density Residential Metro Plan designation 1 Technically, the existing zoning of the site is split PL Public Land and R-1 Low Density Residential. However, since presumably the concern is about the undeveloped portion of the site (which is mostly POS designated and R-1 zoned) an analysis of what is allowed in the PL zone is not included. Allowable uses and standards for PL zone can be found beginning at Eugene Code 9.2680. The full list of uses allowed in R-1 is at EC Table 9.2740. 5 PC Agenda - Page 23  Attachment C residential or commercial Metro Plan allows some non-residential uses designation Education, Not allowed because it is only permitted Allowed with a CUP because a Low Density religious through a CUP which would require a Residential Metro Plan designation allows residential or commercial Metro Plan some non-residential uses designation Cemetery Allowed with a CUP because a cemetery Allowed with a CUP because a Low Density use is consistent with a Parks and Open Residential Metro Plan designation allows Space Metro Plan designation. some non-residential uses Note: PUD is a planned unit development; CUP is a conditional use permit. Regarding allowable density, with the exception of CIR housing, the allowable density range in the R-1 zone is up to 14 homes per net acre, which excludes land for roads. However, because the site is in the south hills, a subdivision would be limited to a maximum of 5 homes per gross acre. 6 PC Agenda - Page 24  Attachment D Rest-Haven (files MA 15-1, Z 15-1) 1/4 mile radius from parks and schools (Does not equal park service area boudaries) Amazon Park Friendly Wayne Morse Family Farm 1/4 mile Lafferty Milton Crest Heights Glen Oak Willis Tugman Kincaid Edgewood Amazon Parkway Blanton Ridge 1/4 mile Shadow Frank Kinney South Eugene Meadows 1/4 Mile Buffer Area Spencer Butte 0 Amazon Headwaters 800 1600 ´ Ft 3200 Rest-Haven Parks Schools PC Agenda - Page 25  Attachement E PC Agenda - Page 26  Attachement E PC Agenda - Page 27