Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 West 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, Oregon 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in this agenda item. Feel free to come and go as you please at the meeting. 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 Planning Department at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2017 – 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING/ DELIBERATIONS/ ACTION: APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION: RNS MANAGEMENT (Z 17-3) On November 6, 2017, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, deliberate and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official’s decision approving a zone change application submitted by RNS Management LLC (City file: Z 17-3). The Hearings Official approved the removal of both the /PD Planned Unit Development and /10 unit per acre overlay zones from the subject property Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, 541-682-5282 Althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us Public Hearing Format: The Planning Commission will receive a brief City staff report followed by an opportunity for public comment. Time limits on testimony may be imposed. The Planning Commission may seek a response to testimony from City staff. At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission Chair will announce whether the record is closed, the record will be held open, or the public hearing will be continued. Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Chair); John Jaworski; Elliot Becker; Brianna Nicolello (Vice-Chair);  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 6, 2017 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division Subject: Public Hearing/Deliberations/Action: Appeal of Hearings Official Decision on a Zone Change for RNS Management (City file Z 17-3) ACTION REQUESTED On November 6, 2017, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, deliberate and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official’s decision approving a zone change application submitted by RNS Management LLC (City file: Z 17-3). The Hearings Official approved the removal of both the /PD Planned Unit Development and /10 unit per acre overlay zones from the subject property. A hearing and deliberations on this topic were originally scheduled for August; however, the applicant and appellant requested that the appeal proceedings be put on hold. As the appeal has not been withdrawn, the City is required to reach a decision within 120 days of the date the application was deemed complete. In this case, the Planning Commission has until November 9, 2017, to reach its final decision. As no other meetings time are available, the Planning Commission will reach a decision on this appeal the same evening as the hearing, November 6, 2017. BRIEFING STATEMENT The subject property is a vacant site located in northeast Eugene, on the east side of Fairway Loop between Southwood Lane and Eastwood Lane (see Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The property is currently split zoned. The northern 1.25 acres of the property is zoned R-2 Medium-Density Residential with/10 units per acre and /PD Planned Unit Development overlays. The southern 3.54 acres of the property is zoned GO General Office with a /PD Planned Unit Development overlay (see Attachment B - Zoning Map). An application for a zone change was filed by the property owner, RNS Management LLC, requesting removal of the /PD and /10 overlay zones. No changes to the base zones were requested. Both of the base zones on the property (R-2 and GO) are consistent with adopted plans. At the initial public hearing before the Hearings Official, the primary concern expressed by neighbors was related to a traffic barrier located in Fairway Loop. The neighbors expressed concern that if the /PD overlay were removed from the subject property, development could occur on the subject property that would either remove the traffic barrier entirely, or would allow traffic to travel across the subject property and circumvent the traffic barrier. The Hearings Official approved the removal of both overlay zones without conditions. As his decision makes clear, the Hearings Official did not think the traffic barrier was an issue that could be addressed through the zone change application and approval criteria. Following the Hearing Official’s approval of the zone change application, an appeal was filed by Alan, J. Thayer Jr., on behalf of Michael Lewis and the Cal Young Neighborhood Association. The appeal was filed on June 26, 2017, and set out three appeal issues related to the traffic barrier and the applicable adopted refinement plan, the Willakenzie Area Plan (see Attachment C- Appeal Statement). Those appeal issues are discussed in detail below. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE The Eugene Planning Commission serves our community in two main roles. One role is to assist the Eugene City Council in legislative efforts to create or modify our community’s policies related to land use. The other role is to serve as a “quasi-judicial” body to make decisions on individual land use applications in the context of the Eugene Code. In this case, the Planning Commission is being ask to act like a judge rather than a policy-maker. The Planning Commission must decide whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official’s decision based on the approval criteria for a zone change. The first step will be a public hearing, during which the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to hear from any interested parties who wish to make arguments based on the existing record. The basis of the appeal is limited to the issues raised during the review of the original application, and set out in the appeal statement; no new issues or evidence is allowed (see Eugene Code 9.7655). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the testimony presented in the public hearing, written testimony provided to the Planning Commission and the record of the Hearings Official’s decision. This portion of the process is referred to as deliberations. The purpose of deliberations is to help the Planning Commission reach a decision, on each appeal issue. The Planning Commission should ask itself the following question as it considers each appeal issue: given the information in the record at the time of the Hearings Official’s decision, did the Hearings Official correctly evaluate the application, and make a decision consistent with the zone change approval criteria in Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865? STAFF ROLE City of Eugene Planning staff will be present throughout the public hearing and deliberations to assist the Planning Commission. Staff will advise the Planning Commission with regard to process, location of materials in the record, legal matters, and interpretation of land use code requirements. Staff may provide advice and recommendations based on their professional expertise and familiarity with the application and record of materials to date; the Planning Commission may choose whether or not to follow staff recommendations at their discretion. Staff will also assist the Planning Commission in drafting the final decision on this appeal (“Final Order”). In addition to supporting the Planning Commission, staff also serve as a contact for applicants, neighbors and other interested parties. In this role, staff often hear from the people who may be directly impacted by a particular project or decision. When concerns are raised, staff works to help people better understand how to frame a concern in terms of the approval criteria. Staff listens carefully to all concerns, seeks to fully understand the issues and impacts of land use applications, and attempts to provide the best service possible to everyone involved. While all issues are important, staff also make every effort to help our community understand that all land use decisions must be made based on the approval criteria located in the Eugene Code and our community’s adopted plans and policies. SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES This appeal raises three specific issues, all of which appear to fall under EC 9.8865(2). The text of EC 9.8865(2) is provided below in italics for ease of reference. The remaining zone change approval criteria can be found in the Hearing Official’s Decision (Attachment D – Hearings Official Decision). EC 9.8865(2) provides: 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. Each appeal issue is listed below (in bold italics), followed by a brief summary of the Hearings Official’s decision related to the specific issue. The full text of the Appeal Statement and the Hearings Official’s decision are also attached for reference (see Attachments C and D). 1. “The Hearings Official failed to consider how development of the subject property could render the current traffic barrier on Fairway Loop moot and thus inconsistent with the WAP.” In the appeal statement, the appellant contends that the Hearings Official’s decision ignores the issues raised in Alan J. Thayer, Jr.’s May 10, 2017, letter (see Attachment E – Thayer Letter). The appeal statement clarifies that the appellant believes the issue raised by the letter was how development of the site could allow drivers to circumvent the traffic barrier, but the Hearings Official only focused on the potential for removal of the Fairway Loop barrier. The appellant discusses the history of the Fairway Loop barrier, pointing out that it was installed to remedy the problem of regional traffic utilizing local streets to access I-105, County Club Road, and other arterial roads. The appellant also ties transportation planning and policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP), to land use planning, arguing that there is a symbiotic relationship, and that the decision made by the Hearings Official ignores this relationship. As addressed in his decision, the Hearings Official did consider the Thayer letter, and found that the primary concerns expressed by opponents through the letter, and in other testimony, were: 1) whether the traffic barrier in Fairway Loop would be removed and 2) if future development would be allowed to bypass the barrier. The Hearings Official addressed these concerns, noting that “The requested zone change would have no effect in and of itself on the traffic barrier” and “any future effect on the traffic barrier is not relevant to the zone change request” (see pages 3 and 7 of the Hearings Official’s decision, respectively). The Hearings Official also considered the claim in the Thayer letter that removal of the /PD overlay would be inconsistent with the following WAP policy. For ease of reference the policy (from the Transportation Element, Policies and Proposed Actions, Major Streets, Policy 1, page 97) is provided below: The transportation network within the Willakenzie area shall be planned and designed to ensure: a) preservation of existing neighborhoods; b) an adequate system of arterials and collectors for the efficient movement of through traffic; and c) the preservation of the use of local streets for local traffic. Regarding the above policy, the Hearings Official determined that the above policy appears to be directed towards policy decisions of the City rather than individual land use decisions (see page 4 of the Hearing Official’s decision). Based on staff’s review, it appears that the Hearings Official did consider the future development of the property, and the WAP, but found no legal basis to connect the zone change request with the question of whether the Fairway Loop traffic barrier would remain in place. 2. “The Hearings Official failed to address how development on the subject property could conflict with the WAP traffic requirements for the area.” Under this appeal issue, the appellant again contends that it is necessary to consider future development of the subject property as part of the zone change request. In the context of the above appeal issue, the focus appears to be on the potential for the GO General Office portion of the site to develop in a way that would allow traffic from the new development into the residential area north of the barrier. The appellant asserts that the /PD overlay is necessary to ensure that the property is developed so that traffic from commercial development does not enter the neighborhood north of the Fairway Loop barrier. The Hearings Official addressed the Fairway Loop barrier in several places in the decision (see pages 3, 4, and 7); ultimately concluding that any future effect of development on the traffic barrier is not relevant to the zone change request. As the Hearings Official did not find the future development and effect on the traffic barrier germane to the zone change request, there was no need for further discussion of potential outcomes. 3. “The WAP must be amended before this zone change request can be granted.” The above appeal issue re-asserts the appellant’s argument that the removal of the /PD overlay is inconsistent with the WAP. Similar to issues #1 and #2, this issue appears to be focused solely on the policy discussed above (Transportation Element, Policies and Proposed Actions, Major Streets, Policy 1, page 97). As discussed in relation to the previous two appeal issues, the Hearings Official did consider the WAP, and found that the zone change request was consistent with the policies in the plan. Therefore, it appears that there is no basis to require an amendment of the WAP for the approval of this particular zone change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the available information, including the appeal and all relevant record materials to date, staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official’s decision. Staff has attached a proposed draft Final Order affirming the Hearings Official’s decision for the Planning Commission’s consideration (see Attachment F – Draft Final Order). If the Planning Commission decides to reverse or otherwise modify the Hearings Official’s decision, the Planning Commission will need to clearly articulate its reasoning and the basis relied upon to reach its conclusion, so that staff can prepare a revised Final Order. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Appeal Statement D. Hearings Official Decision E. Thayer Letter F. Draft Final Order G. Additional Record Items The entire record of materials for the subject application is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices and has already been provided to the Planning Commission. Record materials will also be available at the public hearing, and are available on the City’s website at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=Z-17-0003 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682- 5283, or by e-mail at althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us  Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachment A OAKWAY CENTE R OAKWAY RD EUGENE EASTWOOD LN FAIRWAY LP RD RG OBU C N DL W OO U TH SO 5 I-10 Legend Subject Site 0 125 250 Ft 500 Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. ± 4/19/17 RNS Management LLC (Z 17-3) Attachment B 05004+ 17- 29- 0 23- 4- Zone change from Medium Density Residential with 10 units per acre and a Planned Unit Development overlay (10/ R-2 P D) /to Medium Density Residential (R- 2) and from General Office with a Planned Unit Development overlay (GO/PD)to General Office (GO). Westwood L n Eastwood Ln O n j i 1- 105 n N Zoning GO General Office with /PD C-2 Community Commercial R-1 Density Residential Low- R-2 Medium-Density Residential with PD and /10 Overlay Zones Subject Site 2A N  Attachment C Appeal of Initial Hearings Official Decision Zone Change RNS Management LLC (Z 17-3) The Cal Young Neighborhood Association appeals the June 8, 2017 Hearings Official Decision on this zone personally,joins in the appeal. change application. Alan J.Thayer, Jr., Appeal Statement Eugene Code requires that. the proposed zone change be consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. EC 9. 2). 8865( The subject property is within the boundaries of the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). Those policies include the requirements set out below. The transportation network within the Willakenzie area shall be planned and designed to ensure: a) preservation of existing neighborhoods WAP, Page 97. Consistent with that policy, the WAP specifically stated that Fairway Loop should be closed to through traffic between Southwood and Eastwood Lanes. WAP,page 97. 1. The Hearings Official failed to consider how development of the subject property could render the current traffic barrier on Fairway Loop moot and thus inconsistent with the WAP. The Hearings Official Decision states "the requested zone change overlay removal is not related to the question of whether Fairway Loop should be open to additional traffic." Hearings Official Decision, page 4. s May 10, 2017 The Hearings Official Decision ignores the issues raised in Alan J. Thayer, Jr.' The letter to Althea Sullivan (Thayer Letter). Thayer Letter does not address or even contemplate removal of the Fairway Loop barrier. Instead, it details how the barrier could be circumvented by development on the site. Fairway Loop runs along the western boundary of the subject property in an approximately north- south direction. There currently is a barrier on this portion of Fairway Loop that prohibits regional traffic from avoiding the congestion at the intersection of Oakway and Coburg Road. As is also detailed in the Thayer Letter, before the Fairway Loop barrier, regional traffic would divert from Oakway onto Eastwood, Fair Oaks and the streets in between, to Fairway Loop and then to Southwood. The regional traffic could then reach I- 105, Country Club Road and other arterial roads. Prior to construction of the Fairway Loop barrier in 1998, traffic counts of over 2, 000 cars a day through these residential streets were observed. Thayer Letter, page 2. With  Attachment C greater traffic in the Oakway and Coburg Road corridors, that number would be significantly higher today. There is a symbiotic relationship between land use planning and transportation planning. Imprudent land use decisions can impact transportation and vice versa. In fact,the City of Eugene recognizes that relationship by including both land use and transportation in its refinement plans. That is certainly the case with the applicable refinement plan for this property, the WAP. If the City is going to make land use decisions that are inconsistent with and violate its transportation plans, then why have transportation plans?Obviously, good land use planning requires transportation planning and requires land use decisions consistent with its transportation plans. As a matter of law, EC 9.2) 8 865( requires that a proposed zone change be consistent with applicable refinement plans. It does not exempt transportation plans contained in an applicable refinement plan. Thus, zone changes that are inconsistent with a refinement plan's transportation provisions are inconsistent with the refinement plan. This is the situation here. Development on the subject property could allow a bypass of the traffic barrier and thus be inconsistent with the WAP. The PD overlay is necessary to ensure that the property is developed in a manner that does not allow a bypass of the traffic barrier and that is consistent with the WAP. 2. The Hearings Official failed to address how development on the subject property could conflict with WAY traffic requirements for the area. The northern portion of the subject property is zoned residential and the southern portion is zoned commercial. Appellants are not concerned by residential users on the northern part of the property entering and exiting the property via Fairway Loop north of the barricade. They can then travel on Eastwood and the residential streets north of Eastwood. The users of the commercial portion of the subject property are required by the WAP, however, to enter and exit the property via Fairway Loop south of the barricade and avoid the residential neighborhood. As set out above,the WAP requires development be planned and designed to ensure "preservation of existing neighborhoods..." 4A, , page 97. Commercial development that allows for ingress and egress through residential neighborhoods is not consistent with preservation of existing neighborhoods, the WAP or good land use and transportation planning. . The PD overlay is necessary to ensure that the property is developed in a manner that does not allow users of the commercial portion of the property to enter and exit the property through the existing neighborhood and that is consistent with the WAP.  Attachment C 3. The WAP must be amended before this zone change request can be granted. As set out above, the zone change request to eliminate the PD overlay is not consistent with the WAP and therefore cannot be granted pursuant to EC 9. 2). 8865( Accordingly, before the zone change request can be granted, the WAP must be amended. Respectfully submitted, Innovative Law roup By: A J. The(yer,Jr. Attorney for Cal Young eighborhood Association And Personally  Attachment C APPEAL OF INITIAL HEARINGS OFFICIAL OR Planning HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD DECISION The appeal of an initial Hearings Official or Historic Review Board decision provides for a review of a quasi- judicial decision by a higher review authority specified in the Land Use Code. In general,the appeal procedures allow for a review of the original application, the Hearings Official or Historic Review Board decision, the appeal application, and any facts or testimony relating to issues and materials that were submitted before or during the initial quasi- judicial public hearing process. The Hearings Official or Historic Review Board decision may be affirmed, reversed, modified, or remanded by the Planning Commission. Please check one of the following: Adjustment Review, Major Planned Unit Development, Tentative Plan Conditional Use Permit Willamette Greenway Permit Historic Landmark Designation Kzone Change* This appeal form is not applicable for zone changes processed concurrently with a Metro Plan amendment the adoption or amendment of a refinement plan, a Land Use Code amendment or the application of the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone. City File Name: v City File Number: Z (7 - 3 Vr _24( Date of Hearings Official or Historic Review Board Decision:, 1i y~¢. Date Appeal Filed: Z-s ZO l / C wv.. rz I- wr~ z(ZO t-~ At d This date must be within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Dire s decision.) Attach a written appeal statement. The appeal statement shall include a written statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record, and be limited to the issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues. The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the Hearings Official or Historic Review Board failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the original application. Please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information center, 99 West 101h avenue, 541- 682-for further information on the appeal process. 5377, IVA filing fee must accompany all Hearing's Official and Historic Review Board appeals. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and I nformation center to determine the required fee or check on the web at:www.org eupeneplanninp. planning or. www.g e ugene- ov/ Planning & Development Updated: October, 2012 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541. 5377 682. * F 541. 5572 685. Page 1 of 2  Attachment C Acknowledgment I ( we),the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that I (we)have read the above appeal form, understand the requirements for filing an appeal of a hearings official or historic review board decision, and state that the information supplied is as complete and detailed as is currently possible, to the best of my (our)knowledge. APPELLANT: Name ( print): V1ntu ' Le,. s O: Phone: .S'I 3 (' / J`^ V ! / / vc / VC~ C1nM~~' hne,, O ASS - cKV`" Address: APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Name (print): A~ A 1 ~O C• o0UA ' Vj;. ~ Company/Organization: = V' Lo..- J Glt~ Pcr- Address: Citv/ Zip:S tate/ y„ rQu~ .nZ E- mail (if applicable): ht v- L-, 6 W VVI v Phone: o- l1I_~~ 2g . 7& I' P- VL'// FaN-1 _ 3y, --Zy_ n6 Signature: / Y ood association, complete the following: IF this appeal is being filed by the aff4ctgo'recognized neig bo Name of Association: a~yavh kleP0r k00q ITSS0CIA-~ dr1 - 6- YAj J www. gov/ eugene- o p lanning r. Planning & Development Updated: October,2012 Planning Division 99 W. SOTM Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541. 5377 F 541. 682. • 5572 685. Page 2 of 2  Attachment C Acknowledgment I ( we),the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that I ( we)have read the above appeal form, understand the requirements for filing an appeal of a hearings official or historic review board decision, and state that the information supplied is as complete and detailed as is currently possible, to the best of my (our)knowledge. APPELLANT: Name (Print): tom Phone: Company/Organization: Address: ZO C Zip: City/S tate/ Qz ! ` qO Signature: APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Name (print): Company/Organization: Address: Zip: City/S tate/ E- mail (if applicable): Phone: Fax: Signature: IF this appeal is being filed by the affected recognized neighborhood association, complete the following: Name of Association: www. gov/ eugene- o p lanning r. Planning & Development Updated: October,2012 Planning Division 99 W. SOT"Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541. 5377' 682.F 541. 5572 685. Page 2 of 2  Attachment C innovative L A W G R O U P SUMMIT BANK EUGENE, OR 87401 1232 96. 691/ 7793 GENOtAL ACCOUNT P.O. BOX 1209 EUGENE, OR 97"0 fi PAY Nine Hundred Thirteen and 75/100 Dollars TO THE DATE AMOUNT ORDER OF 8 City of Eugene Memo: Lane Use Appeal Fee Z 17-3 115007793118 1:1 2 3 2069 141: 013176SO J  Attachment C i k PLANNING RECEIPT DATE 6/ 2017 26/ City of Eugene Planning Method of Payment Cash O Check Visa/MC Amount Received 75...._ 1$ 913. 9 ire Review i- e e Staff Re eivi g Application l.._..._..S f  Attachment C A I- l~ tI L ' G DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT i DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF EUGENE CITY OF EUGENE BUILDING & PERMIT SERVICE BUILDING & PERMIT SERVICE 99 WEST 10TH AVE 682-5086 99 WEST 10TH AVE 682-5086 REG- 3- R003693 0 ECEIPT: Jun 28 2017 3- REG- R003633 0 ECEIPT: Jun 26 2017 CASHIER: CMM CASHIER: CMM Appeal of Planning App De $ 82.24 Appeal of Planning App De $ 913.75 Remainder of Appeal due for Z 17-3 z 17-3 TOTAL DUE: $ 82.24 TOTAL DUE: $ 913.75 I RECEIVED FROM: RECEIVED FROM: INNOVATIVE LAW GROUP INNOVATIVE LAW GROUP i I Check: $ 82.24 Check: $ 913.75 Total tendered: $ 82.24 i Total tendered: $ 913.75 Change due: $. 00 Change due: $. 00 or. www. bldgpermittracking g e ugene- ov/ bldgpermittracking or. www. g e ugene-. ov/ Please take our customer survey at: Please take our customer survey at: www. COEPermitSurvey com/ surveymonkey./ i com/ COEPermitSurvey www_ surveymonkey_/ DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT 3 Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D  Attachment E innovative L A W G R O U P Reinventing the way lawyers serve business May 10, 2017 Althea Sullivan Assistant Planner City of Eugene 125 East Eighth Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Re: RNS Management LLC (Z 17-3) Comments on Proposed Zone Change Dear Ms. Sullivan, Rob Bennett and his family are assets to this community. He also is a great developer, creating many projects used and enjoyed by countless area residents. Notwithstanding my respect and admiration for Rob Bennett, I submit these comments on RNS Management's proposed zone change. The review and oversight that accompanies the current PD overlay designation is essential to implement applicable refinement plan policies and recommendation for this area. Thus, removing the PD overlay violates that refinement plan. No objection is made to removing the 10- unit overlay on a portion of subject property. It does not appear Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan)or the WAP. Instead, it is to be inconsistent with the Eugene- consistent with compact, urban development. This zoning change proposal may be unique. Generally, traffic considerations relating to zoning changes and development are limited to the traffic affects caused the particular project on the particular property. That is the vehicle trips generated per day. The concern here is development on the property could allow regional traffic to circumvent a traffic barrier on a public street, thus diverting regional traffic onto local streets in residential neighborhoods, violating the refinement plan. Eugene Code requires that the proposed zone change be consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. EC 9. 2).8865( The subject property is within the boundaries of the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). Those policies include the requirements set out below. The transportation network within the Willakenzie area shall be planned and designed to ensure: a)preservation of existing neighborhoods; b) an adequate system of arterials and collectors for the efficient movement of through traffic; and c)the preservation of the use of local streets for local traffic. WAP, Page 97. Consistent with that policy, the WAP specifically stated that Fairway Loop should be closed to through traffic between Southwood and Eastwood Lanes. WAP,page 97. 1209 Pearl Street 0 PO Box 1268 0 Eugene, OR 97440-1268 # ( 541)345-232 0 thinklLG.com  Attachment E Nlav 10, 2017, Althea Sullivan 2 This recommendation was made in 1992 (the year the WAP was adopted)because regional drivers would use Fair Oaks Drive, Southwood Lane and the streets in between to connect onto Fairway Loop as a shortcut to avoid congestion in the Coburg Road corridor. A March 30, 1998 letter from Thomas C. Larsen, Project Manager for the Ferry Street Bridge project for the City of Eugene, Public Works department to Jane Lillis-Olson (Larsen Letter)indicated that over 2, 000 vehicles a day took this shortcut, diverting through residential streets. A copy of the Larsen Letter is included with these comments. The recommended action was implemented when Fairway Loop was closed some time in 1999 or 2000 (I believe). The comments by Steve Gross in a March 27,2017 email to Althea Sullivan (Gross Email)correctly state that the high level of traffic that diverted through the residential streets created significant safety issues and several accidents. The Gross Email is included as Attachment C to the April 2017 Zone Change Staff Report. Having lived on Bedford Way since 1994, I can collaborate Mr. Gross' comments. Since through traffic on Fairway Loop has been blocked, numerous families with young children have moved into the neighborhood. Prior to the closure, outdoor activities were conducted mostly in back yards. Now,families gather in the front of their homes and children play in the front yards. This leads to a greater sense of community among neighbors. It also greatly exacerbates the safety risks identified in 1992 by the WAP. Also, in the years since Fairway Loop was closed, significant commercial and residential development has occurred in the area, increasing regional traffic at the intersection of Oakway and Coburg Road. The city can no doubt verify that the average daily traffic count on Oakway Road and at its intersection with Coburg Road has greatly increased. Regional traffic today is much greater than when the WAP recommended closing Fairway Loop to through traffic 25 years ago. The traffic barrier on Fairway Loop could be rendered all but moot if traffic is allowed to enter the subject property on one side of the barrier and then exit the property on the other side. Although this may be an inconvenience for regional drivers, it is much less of an inconvenience than waiting three or four or sometimes even five traffic light cycles at Oakway Road's intersection with Coburg Road. A zone change which could allow this to happen would violate the WAP's policy of preserving existing neighborhoods and preserving the use of local streets for local traffic and violate the WAP's recommendation to close Fairway Loop to through traffic between Southwood and Eastwood Lanes. The existing PD overlay is necessary to review and approve development on the site so that regional traffic cannot circumvent traffic control barriers on Fairway Loop. Removing the PD overlay on the subject property will be inconsistent with and violate the policies and recommendations of the WAP. Applicant's requested zone change to remove this overlay must be denied. Sincerely yours, s/Alan J.Thayer, Jr. Alan J.Thayer, Jr. Business Attorney AJT:sh Enclosure  Attachment E r PuNic « Vorks Transportation Ferry Street Bridge Project City of Eugene 858 Pearl Street, Suite 300 Eugene, Oregon 97409 549)984-8449 541)984-8490 (fax) March 309 1995 Jane Lillis- Olson 2061 Eastwood Lane Eugene, OR 97401 At the Eastwood Lane neighborhood meeting held Thursday, March 5, I told you I would discuss the future closure of Fairway Loop with others in Transportation and Public Works. After those discussions, I am now designing a vehicle closure for Fairway Loop. The closure will be constructed as a portion of the Ferry Street Bridge Project. When I asked if traffic on Eastwood had increased since the start of construction, my sense of the attendees' response was that conditions were about the same. We have started to get complaints about the level of congestion on the corridor and feel diverting Fairway Loop traffic back into the construction area at this time would only make the existing situation worse. Transportation staff will re- count the Fairway Loop traffic for comparison purposes. Historically Fairway Loop and Southwood Lane have been used as a ':shortcut by- drivers avoiding the congestion and out of direction routing in the Coburg Road corridor. The Draft EIS for the Ferry Street Bridge project identified closure of Fairway Loop as a goal. The Willakenzie Refinement Plan also identified the closure as a proposed action to implement Policy 1. In both cases the cut through traffic is the underlying problem and closure was the only perceived solution. Neither document is specific as to location, means, or.time frame for accomplishing the closure. The closure is proposed be located at approximately the place where the zoning change occurs on the east side of Fairway Loop, about two thirds of the way north of Southwood Lane. The closure will protect and maintain the existing access for bikes and pedestrians and will not remove the existing With the pavement. significant amount of undeveloped property adjoining Fairway Loop it would be unwise to make large scale modifications to the roadbed. The closure will be adequate to stop vehicular traffic. With all the on- going construction in the corridor, traffic continues to move but is sensitive to any disruptions. Two weeks ago an EWEB power pole relocation blocked the 3à street off ramp and traffic was quickly backed up to the Oak-way Shopping Center. The Fairway Loop closure will divert over 2000 vehicles per day, mostly into the constructionarea. The already congested closure will be installed after the alternate route new street ( Cedarwood Road) and the new traffic signal on the south side of I- 105 are complete and operational. I anticipate that will be the end of the 1999 summer construction season.  Attachment E On March 119 the Oregon Department of Transportation (® the furniture store 1J® T) wrote the property owner of driveway on Southwood Lane and revoked their driveway will be removed and not reconstructed as the temporary access permit. The progresses on Southwood Lane. Ferry Street Bridge project work enc cc Al Johnson Walter Pritchard Counselor Bobby Lee Counselor Ken Tollenaar Mayor Torrey IVS  Attachment E 0 6b a~ P' 0 s D O I.~ RR 2 ~ vc ~}- l~ 7ofv ~ 0 WI CCA~T re R~ ~ E nl  Attachment F FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION: RNS MANAGEMENT LLC (Z 17-3) ____________________________________________________________________________________ I. BACKGROUND The subject zone change application, RNS Management LLC (Z 17-3), was deemed complete on March 9, 2017. A public hearing before the Hearings Official was held on April 26, 2017. Following the public hearing, the Hearings Official granted a request to leave the public record open for additional public testimony; the applicant’s final rebuttal was submitted on May 24, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Hearings Official issued a decision, finding that the approval criteria for a zone change had been met (see Eugene Code 9.8865). On June 26, 2017, Alan J. Thayer, Jr., Michael Lewis, and the Cal Young Neighborhood Association, filed an appeal that included three assignments of error. The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on this appeal on November 6, 2017, and deliberated the same evening. After deliberations concluded, action was taken to adopt a Final Order affirming the Hearings Official’s decision to approve the subject zone change application. The Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission regarding this appeal is based on the record, and limited to the issues raised in the record that are set out in appellants’ written appeal statement, in accordance with applicable procedural requirements of the Eugene Code (EC). II. FINAL ORDER The Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the appellants’ assignments of error, and has voted to affirm the decision of the Hearings Official, dated June 12, 2017, approving the RNS Management LLC Zone Change application (Z 17-3). The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Decision of the Hearings Official, dated June 12, 2017, which is incorporated into this Final Order by reference and attached as Exhibit A. The Planning Commission concludes that the Hearings Official correctly evaluated the application based on the zone change approval criteria located at EC 9.8865. The decision of the Hearings Official is affirmed. The foregoing findings and conclusions are adopted as the Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission, for RNS Management LLC (Z 17-3), this 6th day of November, 2017. ______________________________ John Barofsky, Chair Eugene Planning Commission Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G Attachment G