The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication Completeness ReviewFebruary 13, 2015 Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201 Eugene, OR 97401 Subject: Completeness Review for Rest Haven Plan Amendment Zone Change (City Files MA 15-1 and Z 15-1) Dear Carol: This letter is in response to your recent applications for Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the Rest Haven site. The applications have been assigned the file numbers MA 15-1 and Z 15-1 as noted above. As you know, the first step in the application process is the "Completeness Review Step." For further information about this step, refer to the document enclosed titled, "Land Use Application - Completeness Review Step." Regarding your applications, City staff has reviewed the applications and determined that they are incomplete as outlined below and in the attached Completeness Review Forms. A. Plan Amendment EC 9.7735 ® Goals As the application acknowledges, Goal 5 must be considered where a proposed amendment allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource. OAR 660-023- 0250(3). The application asserts that the proposal does not allow new uses that could conflict with a significant Goal 5 resource and that consideration of Goal 5 is not required. However, there are several significant Goal 5 resources on the site, identified in the City's Goal 5 Water Resources Plan (and, the site appears on the Scenic Sites map from the Metro Plan Working Papers). The application must therefore address those Goal 5 resources and explain why the proposal does not trigger a Goal 5 analysis or, if it does, provide that analysis. a Goal8 The application should provide a detailed analysis explaining how the removal of land designated Parks and Open Space in the general vicinity where the PROS Project and Priority Plan calls for additional parks is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8. City of Eugene e 99 V'~4 10th Ave. - Eugene, OR 97401 * S41-682-S481 - S41-682-5S7 Fax w~,v vf~eugei e-c~ r.gov pIanning @ G:'nac ii 1 he applicant submted a p oposevi "scope` for'Goai 12 aHiC 1 A acl 3n21 ayszs `1 rIOr to SLs Diill}tcls C Lsh Subject a p p u.c cC N C) n s. ..~a.c.V e!S!- "J, t4B- aPp: Ca'n i.0 Ja,..;n-ia Lba~ 1,Y 6 an Change applications prior to determining the appropriate scope of the applicant's traffic study. Staff has now reviewed the subject application, and provides the following input regarding the appropriate traffic impact analysis under Goal 12. Study Area intersections The applicant's proposed study area includes only „the site driveways on Willamette Street and the abutting intersection of Willamette Street and E. 40th Avenue." The applicant's proposed study area is insufficient to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed designation and zone change on the City's existing and planned transportation facilities. In coordination with Public Works staff, we have initially determined that the traffic impact analysis study area for the subject site will need to analyze the following intersections: Intersections to be Analyzed Accident Traffic Jurisdiction Level of Study/Collision Signal Service Diagram Warrant Requirement Required? Analysis Required? Willamette @ Donald/32nd No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ Crest No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 33rd No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 39th No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 40th No No City of Eugene LOS D Donald @ 40th No No City of Eugene j LOS D Study Area Traffic Impact Analysis While, typically, a completeness review does not include substantive direction on how an applicant must conduct a Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis once the applicant has collected the traffic counts for the study area, the applicant has proposed the scope of an analysis (in a memo from Branch Engineering dated 11/19/14) and specifically requests that the City comment on its proposal. In an effort to identify issues with the applicant's proposed analysis, these completeness review comments set forth what staff believe to be the most defensible TPR analysis for the subject - site. Because the November 2014 memorandum contains so many unsupported assumptions and premises, these comments do not step through that memo point by point. Rather, to provide the most assistance to the applicant, these comments simply set out the steps and assumptions that staff believe are necessary to conduct a defensible TPR analysis for this site. To determine whether or not the proposed designation change would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, compare reasonable worst case development scenario for Parks and Open Space (POS) to reasonable worst case development scenario for Low Density Residential (LDR). In making this comparison, since 29.5 acres of the site are currently used as a cemetery and 2 ,!ifl con-: nue to be used. as a ceretery after th- amendmen , we believe accounting 'or those acres in both the POS and LDR assumptions is reasonable. We agree with the applicant that 0.84 trips per `or f0.5 acres %4 Leme-' e~_y use is a reas_na ble a_ss i ,apeco^d ..e av .Eci t~, nowev`er, c~oe'J4 swat a;", r!u~.o:b: :e6as ~r'st~a.;.:~cs .,.c@~ M ae a4"'s~± R~i:" ~ti,gR/ dtr'ru~srotl~ die the POS assumption is reasonable. A reasonable worst case development scenario analysis for TPR purposes is intended to determine whether a proposed amendment will significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. As such, the scenario assumptions need to reasonably correlate to the assumptions that served as the basis for the City's transportation system plan, TransPlan. We can find no support for the assertion that the City assumed CIR housing development on land designated as POS. Simply because a CIR application was submitted for a portion of this property does not support the conclusion that CIR-level densities were assumed for this, or any, POS designated property. Accordingly, for TPR analysis purposes, it is not a reasonable worst case scenario development assumption that land designated as POS will be developed with CIR housing. We believe a reasonable worst case development scenario trip generation for POS designated property is 0.2 trips per acre. Regarding the LDR density assumptions, staff believes that 5 dwelling units per acre is a reasonable density assumption as the maximum density allowed under the adopted South Hills Study refinement plan. We could find no support for the assertion that 2.6 units per acre served as the LDR assumption for either TransPlan, or the Metro Plan. As such, even though 2.6 units per acre may be the average in the south hills area, it is not a reasonable worst case development scenario assumption for purposes of a TPR analysis. We agree with the applicant that the reasonable trip generation for LDR is 1 peak hour trip per dwelling unit, but the 1 peak hour trip per dwelling unit must be calculated with a maximum 5 dwelling units per acre as the reasonable worst case trip generation scenario for LDR. After gathering the traffic counts of the six identified intersections and using the reasonable worst case development scenario assumptions listed above, the applicant's TPR analysis should include at least the following information: 1. Required study area intersections analyzed. 2. Current (2015) LOS at each study area intersection. 3. 2027 (Horizon Year) LOS without the amendment and zone change (i.e. 2027 LOS with 29.5 acres of cemetery at 0.84 trips per acre and the remaining POS acreage at 0.2 trips per acre). 4. 2027 (Horizon Year) LOS with the amendment and zone change (i.e. 2027 LOS with 29.5 acres of cemetery at 0.84 trips per acre and the remaining LDR acreage at 5 units per acre and 1 peak hour trip per unit). 5. Mitigation measures to address a significant effect of the amendment, if needed. Note: There appear to be discrepancies between the acreages used in the application narrative, the Branch Engineering memorandum, and those previously proposed as part of the City-initiated Envision Eugene re-designation process involving the subject property. The application materials cite a total of 74.5 acres; the Branch memo cites a total acreage of 76.12; and, the prior Envision.Eugene process appears to have used a total of 70.2 acres. For purposes of the application and TPR analysis, the appHcan t'wiII need to reconcile these discrerj an, cies and provide evidence_ of t he correct a creage calculations used. Zone Charge EC 9~88L51 There appear to be a few areas where the application materials do not address relevant zone change code requirements. One is the code requirement at EC 9.8860(2), regarding the establishment of overlay zones in conjunction with a zone change. Please address this provision as it relates to the possible addition of overlay zoning, or retention of the existing overlay zoning (i.e. /PD, /tJVR, etc.). The application should also more thoroughly address all potentially relevant provisions of the South !-fills Study under EC 9.8865(2), and specifically whether or not there is a basis for application of the /PD overlay on the subject property. Under EC 9.8865(3), the narrative indicates that "All utilities have reviewed the property for service extensions and state they have the capacity for such extensions of service." if so, please provide evidence of this, or otherwise as necessary, to demonstrate compliance with the approval criterion. As presented in the application, the narrative is conclusory without any substantial evidence to support the applicant's claims. Ca Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting EC 9.7007 Based on email correspondence with at least one ofthe neighbors, you acknowledged there was an error with the mailing labels for the required neighborhood/applicant meeting notice, and are planning to hold another meeting with proper notice. As part of a complete application, you will need to provide evidence and should also discuss compliance with the requirements of EC 9.7007 in your written statement. Also enclosed is a document titled, "Incomplete Land Use Application -180 Day Completeness Review Process." To help ensure City staff knows how to proceed with your application, please fill out and return the enclosed form. If you have any questions, please contact me at (541) 682-5697 or via e-mail at: gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us Enclosures: Completeness Review Step Incomplete Land Use Application -180 Day Completeness Review Process Completeness Review Forms 4 A.0 Han Amendment Cornple`?ene s RRe- ,e%rv Formn Nannln Mvisiorc Application File Name Rest Haven MA 15-1 Date: February 13, 2015 Applicant's Name: Charles Wiper, Inc. Zoning: PL Representative's Name: Carol Schirmer Reviewed by: j Gabe Flock Phone: (541) 682-5697 E-mail: gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us General Comments: Written Statement Required for all Applications Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 1. Submitted a written statement demonstrating that the requested ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ amendment satisfies the criteria found in EC 9.7735. Described any unchanged portions of the Metro Plan the amendment may affect. 2. Submitted a written statement demonstrating that the requested ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ amendment satisfies the criteria found in EC 9.8424. Described any unchanged portions of the refinement plan the amendment may affect. Comments: See attached cover letter Written Statement Required for a Proposed Text Change Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 3. Submitted a written example of the proposed text change. This should be specific page(s) the change applies to should be cited. Comments In formation Required' for a Proposed Diagram Change Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Submitted a map indicating the property included in the request and adjacent streets and alleys. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Submitted a vicinity map indicating the general area of the amendment that allows easy identification of the property. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Submitted a map indicating the existing plan diagram boundaries and the proposed plan diagram boundaries. Comments Required Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting per EC 9.7007 & 9.7010 Submitted Missing Incomplete ® ❑ ❑ 7. Submitted the list of persons who were mailed notice pursuant to EC 9.7007(5) & a signed statement that notice was posted & mailed to those on the list. ® - ❑ ❑ 8. Submitted a copy of the notice(see EC 9.7007(5)) ® ❑ 1-1 9. Submitted a copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(9); ❑ ❑ Z 10. Submitted copy of the site plan presented at the meeting. 11. Verify if site plan submitted with application substantially conforms to site plan ❑ ❑ ® presented at neighborhood/applicant meeting (see EC 9.7007(12)). If not, new meeting is required. Comments: Referral information Yes No j ❑ ❑ 12. Is the right-of-way county maintained? ❑ ❑ 13. Does Parks Planning require a referral for this apoEication? Comments I i Pa g one eareysu~e eness V ° e`' Forma Plannan Department Application Pile Name Rest Haven Z 15-1 mate: February 13, 2015 Applicant's Nerve: Charles Wiper, Inc. Zoning: PL Representative's Name: Carol Schirmer Map/Lat(s) 18-03-18-00 Tax Lot 00300 18-03-07-43 Tax Lot 02100 Reviewed by: Gabe Flock Phone: 541-682-5697 j E-mail: gabriel.]lock@ci.eugene.or.us General Comments: Written Statement Submitted Missing i Incomplete ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Provided a written statement demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the criteria in Eugene Code Section 9.8865. i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2. Provided a written statement and other evidence, if necessary, demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0060 (the Transportation Planning Rule). Comments: See attached cover letter Legal Description Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Provided a legal description for each existing lot involved in the requested change. (These descriptions must be typed on an 8-1/2 x 11" white sheet of paper (no letterhead) so that it is suitable for recording.) Comments Map Information Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Provided a map indicating the property involved in the request and showing adjacent streets, alleys etc. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Provided a vicinity map showing the general area of the request and indicating the specific property involved in the request. Comments 7one Change Cmmnleieness Review Fnrm DaaP 1 of 1