HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report: Planning Commission Public Hearing 7-14-2015=Planning COrramlsslOn AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Harris Hall
Lane County Public Service Building
Phone: 541-682-5481 125 East 8t"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.
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015 - 6:00 P.M.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
REST-HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK (City File No. MA 15-1 and Z 15-1)
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a metro plan amendment for a land use
designation change from Parks and Open Space to Low Density Residential for the entire property,
and a zone change from PL Public Land to R-1 Low Density Residential for the northern
approximately 28 acres of the property currently in cemetery use (resulting in the entire property
being designated Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Low Density Residential).
Lead City Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 541-682-5488
heather.m.odonnell@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; Bree Nicolello; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffery
Mills; Kristen Taylor; William Randall (Chair)
PC Agenda - Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
July 14, 2015
To: Planning Commission
From: Heather O'Donnell, Planning Division
Subject: Public Hearing on Rest-Haven Memorial Park Re-designation & Zone Change
(City files MA 15-1, Z 15-1)
ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a Planning Commission public hearing and possibly deliberate 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 will hold 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
(file no.)
Current
acres
Proposed
acres
acres
Metro Plan
Amendment
Parks & Open Space
73.9
Low Density
73 9
(MA 15-1)
Residential
73.9
R-1 Low Density
No
Zone Change
Residential
46.27
R-1 Low Density
change
d
l
(Z 15-1)
Resi
entia
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.
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.
PC Agenda - Page 2
In their request, the applicant indicates that the purpose for this amendment and zone change
is to enable long-term productive use of the land that is currently not developed or platted with
cemetery plots. The applicant has indicated that they do not intend to further develop this
property for cemetery use and are therefore requesting a change in designation to enable low
density residential development. If approved, the applicant has indicated that they would
submit a new CUP application to reduce the size of the previously approved cemetery.
Process
These land use applications are subject to quasi-judicial procedures (EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095)
for the upcoming public hearing, as well as the approval criteria from the Eugene Code (EC) for
each application type. The applicant's written statement addresses the approval criteria from EC
9.7730 for the Metro Plan Amendment and EC 9.8865 for the Zone Change, which are included in
the package of application materials already provided to the Planning Commission under separate
cover. The Eugene Code requires City staff to prepare a written staff report, prior to the public
hearing, for the Planning Commission's consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment and
zone change request. This agenda item summary and the attached preliminary findings
(Attachment C) addressing compliance with the applicable approval criteria constitute the initial
staff report on this matter.
The Planning Commission will also consider additional public testimony and other materials that
may be presented at the public hearing, before making a recommendation on these applications.
Following the close of the public hearing and record, the Planning Commission will make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with modifications or deny the
applications, based on the required approval criteria. The requests will be heard before the Eugene
City Council in a separate public hearing following Planning Commission action. Eugene Code (EC)
9.7740(4) provides that no new evidence should be allowed at the city council public hearing;
however City Council does have the option to amend this.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
On January 16, 2015, the concurrent Metro Plan amendment and zone change applications were
submitted to the City. In response to the City's completeness review comments, the applicant
provided supplemental application materials and the application was deemed complete on May 11,
2015.
Referrals were provided to the appropriate agencies, and notice of the June 12, 2015 public hearing
was mailed and posted consistent with Eugene Code requirements. Since the public notice, staff
has received some inquiries and written public testimony. Responses to the public testimony are
included in the preliminary findings under Goal 1 (Attachment C) and the public testimony received
through July 2, 2015 is provided as Attachment D. Testimony received after that date and prior to
the public hearing will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at the public hearing for inclusion
into the public record.
As of July 2, 2015, staff received written comments addressing the following topics:
PC Agenda - Page 3
• Questions regarding whether cemeteries are allowed in the R-1 zone and whether the
existing cemetery could be converted to housing
• Support for the proposed rezoning, but concern about future development within the
exiting buffer areas
• Comments not necessarily opposing the re-designation/rezoning but asking that during
future development steps for the property that the buffer requirement from the existing
condition use approval is revisited regarding the location and uses allowed within the buffer
Staff has provided a response to these issues later in this staff report. Additional comments
received after the writing of this report (between July 2 and July 6, 2015) are included as
Attachment E.
Applicable Criteria
The Planning Commission must address the relevant approval criteria from EC 9.7730(3) and EC
9.8865 in making recommendations to the City Council on the proposals, as listed below. The
preliminary findings addressing these approval criteria prepared by staff and are attached for
the Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment C).
EC 9.7730 Metro Plan - Approval of a Plan Amendment.
(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria shall be applied
by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning
Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
EC 9.8865 Zone Chanee Approval 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Note: criteria EC 9.8865(4) a-e and g-u are not applicable since no properties are proposed to be
rezoned to these zones.
STAFF EVALUATION: The basis for this request is to enable residential uses to occur on the
PC Agenda - Page 4
portions of the subject property not currently developed or platted with cemetery use. The
property is surrounded by a developed low density residential neighborhood, a church and
Willamette Street.
The applicant's concurrent application materials address the necessary criteria noted above to
support the re-designation and zone change which will enable low density residential uses on
the subject site. The attached preliminary findings conclude that this request is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goals, the Metro Plan, and other applicable approval criteria. There are
several key points to note:
• The re-designation to low density residential adds approximately 46 acres of future
housing capacity to the city's land supply.
• Changing the PL Public Land zone to R-1 Low Density Residential eliminates the conflict
of a privately-owned property being zoned for public use. Additionally, this proposed
rezoning does not conflict or preclude cemetery use as some non-residential uses such
as cemeteries are conditionally permitted and regularly occur in R-1 zones.
• The proposal would bring the Metro Plan designation and zoning into better alignment.
In addition, the Low Density Residential plan designation and zoning matches the
designation and zone of the surrounding neighborhood.
• The re-designation/rezone allows for infill development and re-thinking of a property
where the planned use (cemetery) is no longer needed.
• The same re-designation and zone change proposed now was proposed by the City for
the property in 2013. However, the property owner withdrew their property from
consideration at that time due to the vehicle trip cap the City was proposing. The
applicant's current application includes a detailed traffic analysis that was not available
in 2013, demonstrating that even with the proposed build-out of the site and the
surround area, the streets in the area will not exceed the vehicle capacity for which they
are designed.
• The addition of an overlay zone or other tools to restrict future development (e.g. a
planned unit development overlay, refinement plan policies) is not required at this time,
nor is it supported by any applicable plan policies. As the attached findings describe,
determination of the type of land use application and applicable development standards
will be determined at the time of future development.
• Previously there has been concern raised from neighbors regarding whether re-
designation/rezoning of the property impacts any of the property's earlier land use
applications, such as the 1995 cemetery conditional use permit (CUP) and buffer
requirement or the 2002 CUP for controlled income and rent housing that is on hold.
The re-designation/rezoning of the property would not affect the status of these
permits. Additionally, as noted in the applicant's written statement, a new CUP would
be required before housing can be approved so that the new CUP only covers the
cemetery portion of the site and removes (or unencumbers) the remaining portion of
the site to enable other residential uses.
PC Agenda - Page 5
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on
the proposal. Based on the available information including the applicant's materials and the
attached preliminary findings, staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS: The Planning Commission will be provided separately with a full set of the
application materials and any public testimony for review. It was not feasible to reprint all of
the written materials, attachments, and other items included in the application files as part of
the staff report. However, these materials are available for review at the Planning Division
office and on the City's land use application website. Copies of these materials can also be
provided upon request, for a fee.
A. Aerial Context Map
B. Maps of Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change Boundaries
C. Preliminary Findings
D. Letters of Public Testimony received through July 2, 2015
E. Letters of Public Testimony received between July 3 and July 6, 2015
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Heather O'Donnell at 541-682-5488 or heather.m.odonnelI@ci.eugene.or.us
Land use application website:
http://ceapps.eugene-or.gov/PDDONLINE/LandUse/`ApplicationSearch
Planning Commission website: www.eugene-or.gov/pc
PC Agenda - Page 6
Rest Haven Memorial Park Z 15-1 & MA 15-1
' E
i
ti
M
Pl
D
i
ti
t
x
ng
ro
an
gna
on
s
e
es
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
z
J
UD
z
Y
H
Q
O
T
39TH AVE
~`QO
W-3T-H AVE
F
F
LL'
E 39---T -P-L
Z
U)
Q
J
i~
C
C
o ~
~
STy
Q
o
4/
W 40TH AVE Opp
~A
E40-TH qVE
NORMANDY WAY
O~~CT
~
~
Y
Z
O
m
W
Q
m
D ~N
\NW.O~
'C
O Subject Site
Low Density Residential
M Parks and Open Space
N
PC Agenda -Page 8 -
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
z
J
U)
Z
Y
F-F
~O
E 39TH AVE
4O W - E
~
ST
w
E 39--T-H-P-L
Z
Q
_J
m
o
STti
W 40TH AVE 0"
~A
E 40THJAVE
NORMAND--Y
0.~CT
~
~
Y
Z
O
'
m
W
Q
CD
D ~N
\NwO~'
'C
0J
~P
Q
O Subject Site
Low Density Residential
~
PC Agenda - Page
J
Rest Haven Memorial Park Z 15-1 & MA
' Existing Zoning
Zone Change from PL Public Land to R-1 Low Density Residential
18-03-07-43/02100 & 18-03-18-00/00300
15-1
W 38TH- -E
z
J
J
J
z
O~
Y
Q
z
Y
E 39TH AVE'
~O
W 39T-H AVE
O
S
ST
c
w
o
AL
~
E 39-T-H-P-L
z
_J
0
m
0
S'~
P
STti
q
VE 06 ~A
E-40THAV
F
NORMAND--Y
O,~CT
~
~
Y
Z
O
m
W
Q
CO
D ~N
1Nw 00
'C
O Subject Site
PL Public Land
R-1 Low-Density Residential
PC Agenda -Page 10 _
MN Rest Haven Memorial Park (Z 15-1 & MA 15-1)
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- -E
J
J
Z
J
U
a O
Q Y
3 E 39TH AVE
~O
WF ~
P
E-
A
w
639THP
-L
-o ~
V a
Z -i
_J
0
m
F
STti
~I
q
TH-VE 4110 ~A
E-40T-HJAV
E
ND- RMAND-Y--WAY
O~~CT
~ Y
~
O
Z
07
W
Q
CO
D ~N 'C
~P
Q
O Subject Site
R-1 Low-Density Residential
-
PC Agenda - Page 1
1
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 12
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.
Goal3 -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 13
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 14
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 15
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;
(8) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it
Findings - 5
PC Agenda - Page 16
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 17
regional park
9
Proposed land uses:
Cemetery
23
single-family
residential (5
homes per acre)
231
+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 18
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 19
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
Re_snurres.
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 20
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 21
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 22
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 23
O'DONNELL Heather
From: Shirley Richards <shirleylr@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:15 PM
To: O'DONNEvLL Heather M
Subject: Re: Rest-Haven Metro Plan Re-designation & Zone Change Request
Thank you. Another hearing!!!! How many have there been? How can a cemetery be designated R1
residential?
Shirley Richards
On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:28 PM, O'DONNELL Heather M wrote:
Hello,
I am writing you since you were on the interested individuals emails list regarding the re-designation and zone change
for the Rest-Haven property that the city was proposing in 2014. As you may know, this property was removed from the
package of sites proposed by the city for re-designation/rezone at the property's owners request.
Since then, the property owner has filed their own similar application to change the Metro Plan land use designation and
zoning of the property. We are now reviewing the property owner's application. A public hearing on the request has
been scheduled for July 14`", 2015 and the hearing notice is at this link http://pdd.eugene-
or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=MA-15-0001&id=1260989 . The full set of application materials are at this link
http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=MA-15-0001 .
I hope this clarifies the previous application process from the new application process now in progress and under
review, but please let me know if there are questions about this.
Best,
Heather
L...
0 :no -,,o n thi..., a,! a:d ss be Ndr- .<nde 0" FC,an i ,s.,...~ , .
PC Agenda - Page 24
Receivea
JUN 2 9 1015
• City of Eugene
Planning Division
Nom, q-74 0-5
El,
`c>t,~S Gov A
4
,qV,,z'AA regVi curQ1 as .5o L
PC Agenda - Page 25
O° HELL Heather"
Fro : David Berg <david_berg@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 2:48 PM
To: O'DONNELL Heather MM
Subject: RE: Rest-Haven Metro Plan Re-designation & Zone Change Request
Attachments: Metro Plan Amendment - Commission.docx
Heather,
Attached is our response to Rest Haven's Metro Plan Amendment application. Thank you for the opportunity to
respond. Please let us know that you received it and are able to open it satisfactorily.
- A t a4
Fro : O'DONNELL Heather M [mai Ito: Heather. M.ODonnell@ci.euaene.or.us]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:28 PM
To: O'DONNELL Heather M
Subje : Rest-Haven Metro Plan Re-designation & Zone Change Request
Hello,
I am writing you since you were on the interested individuals emails list regarding the re-designation and zone
change for the Rest-Haven property that the city was proposing in 2014. As you may know, this property was
removed from the package of sites proposed by the city for re-designation/rezone at the property's owners
request.
Since then, the property owner has filed their own similar application to change the Metro Plan land use
designation and zoning of the property. We are now reviewing the property owner's application. A public
hearing on the request has been scheduled for July 14th, 2015 and the hearing notice is at this link
http://pdd.e_ugene-or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=MA-15-0001&id=1260989 . The full set of application
materials are at this link http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=MA-15-0001 .
I hope this clarifies the previous application process from the new application process now in progress and
under review, but please let me know if there are questions about this.
Best,
Heather
S A IC_ ,:t~if17' £~+.s.,C_
i.:; e.)1
_438
me ,F s tl- i a fl,-n ,d&e be d_.,..,.., c,. i£. pd (i and ibi:,,, -...r_..,
PC Agenda - Page 26
David and Judith Berg
03 July 2015
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Heather O'Donnell
99 West Tenth Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: Rest Haven Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change (MA 15-1; Z 15-1)
Honorable Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of this hearing.
Received
JI
City of Eugene
Planning Division
We do not oppose the Metro Plan Amendment application to align the designation and zoning of Rest Haven
Cemetery to Low Density Residential and R1, respectively, subject to City's approval of the application and
responses to its Completeness Review.
However, wherever it is appropriate in the succeeding steps towards development of this property, we ask that
you consider the environmental effects of development on neighboring properties along the east and north side
of Brae Burn Drive that sit at the bottom of the slope that comprises the western- and southern-most edges of
Rest Haven as regards stormwater runoff, erosion, and wind throw.
While there is currently imposed a 75-foot buffer between properties mandated in the cemetery's Conditional
Use Permit, we would like to see this buffer redrawn based on the topography of the land.
This U.S.G.S. Topographic map reflects the geography of the landscape and the gradient between Rest Haven and
the adjacent properties. Each contour represents a 20-foot gradient. The dark line through the Rest Haven
Property is the 700-foot contour. Brae Burn Drive circumscribes Rest Haven's western and southern boundaries.
Observe the steep gradient coming off the700-foot ridge along the southern edge and 720-foot ridge along the
western edge of Rest Haven (drawn-in red line), dropping down to the back yards of neighboring properties below
on Brae Burn Drive. The gradient presents a 40 to 80-foot drop in elevation as you move south on Brae Burn along
the redesignation area (drawn-in blue line). This slope is currently forested, which largely protects neighboring
properties from stormwater runoff, erosion, and wind-throw that would otherwise have a damaging effect on
these properties, and provides a haven for the wildlife that inhabit it.
We submit that the 75-foot buffer currently designated in the cemetery's Conditional Use Permit is arbitrary and
doesn't reflect the depth of the geography that more appropriately describes the affected area, and respectfully
request that wherever it is appropriate in the steps leading towards development that the buffer be restated in
terms of its geography - specifically along the 700- and 720-foot contour lines as shown above - instead of an
arbitrary distance - and further, that this buffer be not only restricted from development, but also restricted from
deforestation to continue its environmental protection of neighboring homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
4125 Brae Burn Drive Eugene, OR 97405.2037 541.683.0904 david_berg@comcastnet
PC Agenda - Page 27
Respectfully submitted,
11i r
~u#tk -K. r
PC Agenda - Page 28
O'DONNELL Heather
From: Michelle Davila <2michelledavila@grnail.corn>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 2:13 PM
To: O'DONNCLL Heather M
Subject- Fwd: Rest Haven rezoning proposal
Rest Haven. t
1~1
Ms. Odonell,
Please see the attached objection regarding the proposed rezoning of Rest Haven Cemetery.
Respectfully,
Michelle Davila, DIP, RIB
1
PC Agenda - Page 29
45 E 39th PI
Eugene, OR 97405
July 6, 2015
Heather O'Donnell
Senior Planner
Planning Commision
West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
REST HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK
I am writing to provide testimony against the proposed land use designation and zoning
changes to Rest Haven Memorial Park. Having recently purchased a house in the immediate
vicinity, I am alarmed at the detrimental and irreparable harm the loss of such a large amount
open space and public land would have on the neighborhood generally and my property
specifically. The memorial park is an essential part of South Eugene, providing a safe walking
area and critical natural habitat that will be lost forever, decreasing the quality of life for
residents and their property values.
The proposed land use changes to Rest Haven Memorial Park should be rejected because they
repeatedly contradict the stated purpose of the Eugene land use code in EC 9.0020. While the
land use code encourages increased density of underused land to support the Eugene Urban
Growth Boundary, the goal of increasing density comes with important caveats. According to
Policy 6 of the land use code, increased density is to be achieved "while maintaining the
character and livability of individual neighborhoods." Such a large loss of open and public areas
will profoundly change the neighborhood, and not for the better. The proposed changes to Low
Density Residential will not increase a greater variety of housing types (Policy 7), nor will it,
given the location, "promote the construction of affordable housing" (Policy 8). Also because of
the location, the proposal will not increase the use of alternative transportation (Policy 11), but,
rather, goes directly against the purpose of Policy 12 of encouraging alternatives to the use of
single-occupant vehicles, thereby increasing traffic on Willamette Street. Finally, the proposal
unequivocally goes against the purpose of the land use code as stated in Policy 18, which is to
"increase the amount and variety of parks and open spaces."
Under EC 9.8865, Zone Change Approval Criteria, the proposal for changing the land use
designation of Rest Haven Memorial Park should be rejected by the Planning Commission for
being inconsistent with the Metro Plan as it it has been implemented by the land use code and
its stated purpose under EC 9.0020.
Sincerely,
Michelle Davila
PC Agenda - Page 30
O'DONNELL Heather
Fro : RMMilks@aol.com
Serum Monday, July 06, 2015 4:25 PM
Tom O'DONNELL Heather M
Cc: juclark@peacehealth.org
Subject: Written Statement for Public Hearing on Request for Metro Plan Amendment Change
Ms. O'Donnell:
My name is Robert R. Milks. My address is 388 Dellwood Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405. 1 am currently the Chairman of
the Board of the Treehouse PUD Homeowners Association. I am also on the mailing lists for the Public Hearing
concerning Rest Haven Memorial Park's request to amend the Metro Plan to change land use designation(s) and for
invitations to attend Neighborhood-Applicant (Rest Haven Memorial Park) Meetings.
First, I would like to point out two problems I have with the "Notice of Public Hearing" that I received from the City of
Eugene ("City").
The first problem is the omission of the reason for Rest Haven Memorial Park's ("Applicant") request for a Metro Plan
Amendment to change their current land use designation(s). The reason for the Applicant's request is clearly stated in his
January 16, 2015, application to the City:
"The property owner is seeking long-term productive uses for the portions of the subject property not currently
developed or platted with cemetery plots. Consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood context, the property
owner submits this application to enable those areas of the subject property to be developed for residential use."
By omitting this stated reason in the "Notice of Public Hearing", the City does not present a linkage between the Metro
Plan Amendment requested by the Applicant and the Applicant's stated intention to develop the subject property for
residential use. I believe this is critical information for homeowners in the affected area Thus, the City is not being
transparent to homeowners adjacent to or in the vicinity of Rest Haven who received the "Notice of Public Hearing". By
not being transparent, the City is, at the very least, not in spirit with EC 9.7730 (3): Criteria for Approval of Plan
Amendment / Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The result of this non-transparency, I'm afraid, will be a diminished turnout at
the Public Hearing and homeowners not being informed. (see more on this issue below)
The second problem is the Internet address for gaining access to the Applicant's application materials at Eugene Planning
in the "Notice of Public Hearing" is no longer valid (http://ceapps.eugene-
or.gov/PDDONLINE/LandUse/ApplicationSearch). The Internet address should have been http.//pdd.eugene-
or.gov/landuse/applicationsearch. Even then, using the proper address did not get the user to the Planning Division's
webpage. I wonder how many older homeowners, who are not good with computers, did not get to the Planning Divisions
webpage to view the Applicant's application materials.
On January 14, 2015, 1 attended the Neighborhood-Applicant Meeting at Rest Haven Memorial Park (this is documented
in the Applicant's application materials). The stated reason for the meeting was to inform attendees about Rest Haven's
request for a Metro Plan Amendment to change their current land use designation(s). When questioned about the
reason(s) for their request, the presenters said the meeting was about the Metro Plan Amendment to change their current
land use designation(s), and the attendees should only focus on that topic. Once again, the presenters at the meeting
could have simply told the attendees:
"The property owner is seeking long-term productive uses for the portions of the subject property not currently developed
or platted with cemetery plots. Consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood context, the property owner
submits this application to enable those areas of the subject property to be developed for residential use."
Just like the City in the "Notice of Public Hearing", the presenters at the Neighborhood-Applicant Meeting did not present
a linkage between the Metro Plan Amendment requested by the Applicant and the Applicant's stated intention to develop
the subject property for residential use. Attendees were deprived of this critical information. The presenters
were not transparent to the attendees. By not being transparent, the presenters, at the very least, were not in spirit with
EC 9.7730 (3): Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment / Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The result of this non-
PC Agenda - Page 31
transparency is attendees left the meeting without knowing the intent of the Applicant to develop portions of Best Haven
for residential use.
Finally, I believe homeowners adjacent to or in the vicinity of Rest Haven would like to know all of the intentions of the
Applicant's with respect to residential development before a Metro Plan Amendment is granted by the City. This would
include the nature of the developments (Controlled Income and Dent, cluster subdivisions, town homes, etc.) and the
impact of any development on adjacent properties (especially wind throw from removal of more trees from the Rest Haven
property; remember, in 2004, Rest Haven took down more than 1,500 trees because it was a fire hazard; do you
remember the last fire that occurred in the South Hills in the last twenty-two years!).
Sincerely,
PC Agenda - Page 32