HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit HE #64F- 6
DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
INTRODUCTION
Application File Name (Numbers):
Jeffries, Deborah and Eric (Z 13-5)
Applicant's Request:
Received in Public Hearing
City of Eugene Planning & Development
File A 6'® 5`
Exhibit
To rezone a portion of the property from R-1/SR Low-Density Residential with Site Review
Overlay to R-1 Low-Density Residential without the Site Review Overlay. To rezone a
portion of the property from AG Agricultural to primarily R-1 Low-Density Residential and a
portion of one tax lot to R-2 Medium-Density Residential.
Subject Property/Location:
Tax Lots 304, 305, 306, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1207, and 1211 of Assessor's Map 17-03-07-00,
currently the River Ridge Golf Course at 3800 North Delta Highway on the north side of
Ayres Road and on both sides of North Delta Highway.
Relevant Dates:
Zone Change application submitted on July 1, 2013; supplemental information submitted
on July 27, 29, and 31, 2013; application deemed complete on July 31, 2013; public hearing
held on September 4, 2013. -
Applicant's Representatives:
Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos.
Lead City Staff:
Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division.
Summary of the Public Hearing
The Hearings Official held a public hearing on this application on September 4, 2013.
The Hearings Official stated he had no conflicts of interests and had no ex parte
communications to disclose. No person objected to the Hearings Official conducting the
hearing. Becky Taylor (Taylor), Associate Planner, and Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, were present
for the hearings. Taylor presented the staff report at the public hearing, recommending
approval of the zone change request and removal of the Site Review Overlay.
The applicant's representative, Bill Kloos (Kloos), provided a brief overview of the
subject property and the requested zone change. A number of opponents testified in
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 1
opposition to the proposed zone change. The opponents were primarily neighbors who live
along the current golf course that are concerned that apartment buildings will be built near
their homes. Kloos responded to numerous issues raised by opponents. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the applicant considered requesting that the record be left open, but eventually
decided against such a request. The record was subsequently closed.
FACTS
The subject property is approximately 109 acres of land that includes the River Ridge
Golf Course as well as parcels developed with residences and undeveloped land. The property is
located on both the east and west sides of Delta Highway north of Ayres Road. Property to the
east of Delta Highway was recently annexed into the city and still retains AG Agricultural zoning.
The applicant requests that the western portion of the property be rezoned from R-1/SR Low-
Density Residential with a Site Review Overlay to R-1 Low-Density Residential without the Site
Design Overlay. The applicant requests that the eastern portion of the property be rezoned
from AG Agricultural to primarily R-1 Low-Density Residential with the southern 15 acres of Tax
Lot 1211 rezoned to R-2 Medium-Density Residential. The proposed zone change to R-2
Medium-Density Residential in the southern portion of Tax Lot 1211 drew most of the
opposition as many opponents live on the existing golf course. Opponents are concerned about
the potential effects of removing the golf course and the construction of multi-family housing.
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the proposed zone change
(Z 13-5) as well as the exhibits submitted and testimony provided at the public hearing.
ANALYSIS
Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865 provides the criteria for approval of a zone change:
"Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application,
including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it
meets all of the following 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.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 2
"(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."
EC 9.8865(1)
EC 9.8865(1) requires that the proposed zone change be consistent with applicable
provisions of the Metro Plan. The most obviously applicable provision of the Metro Plan is the
plan designation for the property. The plan designation for all of the property is Low Density
Residential except for 15 acres in the southern portion of Tax Lot 1211 that is designated
Medium Density Residential. The applicant's proposed zone changes seek to bring the zoning
into compliance with the plan designations. R-1 Low-Density Residential zoning implements the
Low Density Residential plan designation, and R-2 Medium-Density Residential zoning
implements the Medium Density Residential plan designation. Therefore, the proposed zone
change is consistent with the plan designations.
The applicant identified several potentially applicable Metro Plan policies and explained
why the proposed zone change is consistent with those policies. Those policies include
Residential Land Use and Housing Element - Policies A.2 and A.3 and Environmental Resources
Element - Policy C.2. There was no contrary evidence submitted or testimony provided that
specifically addressed any of these policies. I agree with the staff and applicant's conclusions
that the proposed zone changes are consistent with these policies and adopt and incorporate
the applicant's findings provided in the July 26, 2013 Supplemental Narrative. Opponents
provided no other argument that the proposed zone change in inconsistent with the Metro
Plan. Therefore, I find that the proposed zone change is consistent with the provisions of the
Metro Plan and that EC 9.8865(1) is satisfied.
EC 9.8865(2)
EC 9.8865(2) requires that the proposed zone change be consistent with the applicable
adopted refinement plans. In the present case, the applicable refinement plan is the
Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP). The applicant identified several potentially applicable WAP
policies and explained why the proposed zone change is consistent with those policies. Those
policies include WAP General Use Policies 3, 5, 6, and 7; General Residential Policies 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
and 8.1; and Unincorporated Subarea Policies 12 and 13. As the applicant explains, many of
those policies are development policies and are not directly applicable to the zone change
request, even though such concerns may be addressed by the Multi Family Design Standards of
EC 9.5500 that may apply to any future development proposals. The applicant also explains
how the proposed zone change is consistent with the other directly applicable policies. I agree
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 3
with the applicant's and staff findings that the proposed zone change is consistent with those
WAP policies and adopt and incorporate the findings in the applicant's July 29, 2013
Supplemental Narrative and pages 4-5 of the staff report.'
While most of the opponents' evidence and testimony was not directed at specific
provisions of the Metro Plan or WAP, there were some issues that could be construed to raise
WAP provisions. Opponents argued that more green space or open space should be required to
approve the proposed zone change. The staff report explains that the WAP designates the
subject property as Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, which is
consistent with the proposed zone change. The staff report also explains that the original
printed version of the WAP identifies the western portion of the property as having a Parks and
Open Space designation. The staff report further explains that the Parks and Open Space
designation was incorrectly applied as part of a housekeeping amendment package in 2004,
and that the property's designation was corrected back to Low Density Residential by a City
initiated plan amendment in 2009 that also specifically included an amendment to the WAP. In
other words, there is no Parks and Open Space Designation anywhere on the property, and the
absence of any proposed areas zoned for such uses does not violate any provision of the WAP.
Opponents also raised two provisions from the WAP that they argue are inconsistent
with the proposed zone change. The Willakenzie Planning Area Goals state a number of ways to
provide for compatibility between new and existing development. Opponents quote two of
those goals: "Protect and improve the existing residential quality of the Willakenzie area" and
"Ensure that new development is in scale and harmony with the existing neighborhood
character." At the public hearing, staff explained that these goals are not mandatory approval
criteria, but rather aspirational goals. The preamble to the Willakenzie Area Goals states:
"The purpose of the planning goals is to set an overall framework for planning in the
area and to provide a check against findings, policies, and proposed actions that will be
developed in later stages of the planning process."
The language of the preamble and the goals themselves provide aspirational language
that may have provided guidance to the larger planning for the Willakenzie area, in particular
decisions about what plan designations may be appropriate for various properties. I do not see
that the identified policies affect consideration of a zone change proposal. I agree with staff
that the planning goals identified by opponents do not provide applicable approval criteria and
do not render the proposed zone change inconsistent with the WAP. Therefore, I find that the
proposed zone change is consistent with the WAP and satisfies EC 9.8865(2).
EC 9.8865(3)
1 agree with staff that the Unincorporated Subarea policies are applicable to the application. The
applicant had earlier suggested that the annexation of the property rendered the Unincorporated Subarea
policies inapplicable. The applicant later addressed those issues, and those are the findings adopted and
incorporated by this decision.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 4
EC 9.8865(3) requires that the uses and densities allowed by the proposed zoning can be
served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Key urban facilities
and services are defined in the Metro Plan as: wastewater service, stormwater service,
transportation, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, city-wide
parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and
public schools. When the subject property was annexed into the city earlier this year, the
applicant was required to demonstrate that key urban facilities and services could be provided.
The Supporting Narrative submitted for the annexation explains that all key urban facilities and
services are available for the property. The Supporting Narrative was submitted as Exhibit C to
the zone change application at pages 8-9. No evidence was submitted or testimony provided
that persuades me that the applicant is incorrect that the proposed zone change can be served
by the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Therefore, I find that EC 9.8665(3)
is satisfied.
EC 9.8865(4)
EC 9.8865(4) requires that the proposed zone change is consistent with certain
applicable siting requirements, in this case EC 9.2735, which provides:
"Residential Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria of EC 9.8865
Zone Change Approval Criteria, a property proposed for the R-1.5 zone shall not exceed
the area needed to accommodate up to 8 rowhouse lots and shall be located at least
500 feet, as measured along existing street public right-of-way, from any other property
zoned R-1.5"
The proposed zone change is primarily to R-1 Low-Density Residential and to one area of
R-2 Medium-Density Residential, but not R-1.5. Thus, EC 9.2735 is not applicable to the current
application. Therefore, I find that EC 9.8865(4) is satisfied.
EC 9.8865(5)
EC 9.8865(5) requires that certain arrangements must be made with the City when an
NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3). The proposed zone change does not include any NR
zoning, so this criterion does not affect the application. Therefore, I find that EC 9.8865(5) is
satisfied.
Transportation Planning Rule
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides:
"(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
_ 0
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 5
rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of
this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a
transportation facility if it would:
"(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an
adopted plan);
"(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification
system; or
"(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of
this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the
end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part
of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected
to be generated within the area of the amendment may be
reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing
requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation,
including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely
eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
"(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent
with the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
"(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it 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."
If a proposed zone change would "significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility" then certain measures must be put in place to approve the zone change.
An applicant for a zone change may avoid the analysis of OAR 660-012-0060(1) if it qualifies for
an exception under OAR 660-012-0060(9), which provides:
"(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from
this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as
permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from
this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP
amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area."
As discussed above, the proposed zoning for the property is consistent with the existing
comprehensive plan designations. The plan designation is Low Density Residential for the
majority of the property and Medium Density Residential for 15 acres of Tax Lot 1211. Thus,
OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a) is satisfied.
The City's acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is TransPlan. When TransPlan
was adopted in 2001, the subject property was designated Low Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential, and has remained unchanged.2 Thus, the proposed zoning is
consistent with the TSP, and OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a) is satisfied.3
The subject property was not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth
boundary agreement. Thus, OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c) is satisfied. Therefore, the proposed zone
change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR and
therefore complies with the TPR.
Other Challenges
Opponents raised a number of other issues that they argued should result in denial of the
proposed zone change. The opposition to the proposed change focused almost exclusively on the
15 acres of Tax Lot 1211 that are proposed to be rezoned to R-2 Medium-Density Residential.
Except as discussed above, the objections to the proposed zone change to R-2 Medium-Density
Residential do not specifically reference any of the approval criteria for a zone change. The
objections instead concern loss of green space, loss of the buffer of a golf course between other
uses, loss of the pastoral view and privacy provided by the golf course, and loss of property values.
Unfortunately for opponents, even if true those arguments do not provide a basis for denying the
proposed zone change. Opponents also argue that there will be adverse impacts upon traffic,
noise and pollution, stormwater, supply of apartments, and burdens on schools. The problem with
these arguments is that to the extent they have to be considered at all, they will be considered at
the development permit process for any future development of the property. While I sympathize
with the opponents' concerns, the genesis of those concerns is that there is Medium Density
Residential planned land adjoining their upscale Low Density Residential neighborhood. The
concerns they raise are inherent in plan and zone boundaries. Unfortunately for opponents, the
die was cast when the subject portion of the property was planned for Medium Density
Residential. While the opponents' concerns may affect the applicant's future development plans,
they do not provide a basis for denying the proposed zone change.
SR Overlay
As discussed earlier, the applicant also requests that the portion of the property on the
west side of Delta Waters Highway be rezoned from R-1 Low-Density Residential/SR Site Review
Overlay to R-1 Low-Density Residential without the SR overlay. In other words, the applicant seeks
to remove the SR overlay.
A brief history of the SR overlay for the subject property is helpful in understanding the
issue. In 1988, the owners of the property applied for a zone change to allow them to
subsequently apply for a conditional use permit for a golf course. The April 13, 1988 staff report
recommended approval, but also recommended application of an SR overlay to ensure: "Due
consideration to the preservation of attractive and distinctive historical and natural features." The
City approved the zone change and applied the SR overlay. The owners subsequently obtained
conditional use approval for a golf course and driving range in 1988 after obtaining Site Review
approval. The Site Review approval explained that the SR overlay was originally applied to ensure
consideration of the Ayres homestead improvements on the property, which included an early
1900s house, smaller cottage, smokehouse, greenhouse, pump house, and stand of mature trees
around the homestead. The 1988 decision noted that since the SR overlay had been approved, the
City's Historic Preservation Specialist had fully documented the improvements, and no historic
designations were applied. The applicant explains that under the zoning code in effect in 1988, the
SR overlay was used to ensure that special consideration would be given to particular features of a
site or the surrounding neighborhood. In the present case, the SR overlay was to ensure
consideration of the historical features associated with the Ayres homestead.
The applicant makes two arguments in favor of removing the SR overlay: (1) if the initial
decision whether to apply an SR overlay were to be made today, the overlay would not be
imposed, and (2) removing the SR overlay is consistent with the zone change approval criteria. As
the applicant explains, if the imposition of an SR overlay were being considered for the first time
today, there would be no reason to impose the overlay. In the present case, the SR overlay was
imposed to give the City time to give due consideration to the historical features associated with
the Ayres homestead. The City subsequently did give due consideration to the Ayres historical
features. The City's Historic Preservation Specialist fully documented the historical features, but
declined to apply any historic designations. The purpose of the SR overlay was to give the City an
opportunity to review the historical features, and the City subsequently reviewed those features.
At that point, the entire purpose of the SR overlay had been fulfilled. I agree with the applicant
that there is nothing in the R-1 Low-Density Residential zoning requirements that would
necessitate an SR overlay on the property. Additionally, EC 9.4410 provides when SR overlays
apply:
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 8
"Applicability. The /SR overlay zone applies to all property where /SR is indicated on
the Eugene overlay zone map. In addition, the /SR overlay zone may be required by a
refinement plan. * *
The only reason for maintaining the SR overlay is because it is indicated on the overlay
map. There is nothing in the applicable refinement plan (the WAP) or R-1 Low-Density Residential
zoning that would impose the SR overlay. As discussed above, the original reason for the SR
overlay under the prior code was fulfilled years ago, and the SR overlay no longer serves its
intended purpose. The applicant provides a detailed analysis and history of the City removing such
overlays when they were imposed prior to the new EC in 2001 and no longer serve the intended
purpose, and are not required by any refinement plan. I agree with the applicant's argument that
under such circumstances an overlay may be removed.
In order to remove an overlay under these circumstances, the proposal must still satisfy the
zone change approval of EC 9.8865 listed above. The applicant provides analysis of the zone
change approval criteria on pages 18-20 of its July 1, 2013 zone change application. There was no
evidence submitted or testimony presented regarding any of the zone change approval criteria
regarding removal of the SR overlay. I agree with the applicant's findings for EC 9.8865 at pages
18-20 and adopt and incorporate those findings. The only evidence or testimony in opposition
specifically to the removal of the SR overlay was testimony from Brad Boyd (Boyd), who argued
that it was unfair to accept favorable existing conditions, such as the Medium Density Plan
Designation for part of Tax Lot 1211, but to challenge inconvenient existing conditions like the SR
overlay. Unfortunately for Boyd, his "having your cake and eating it too" argument does not refute
the fact that the reason for the SR overlay in the first place no longer exists and that the proposed
removal satisfies all of the zone change approval criteria. I agree with the applicant that the SR
overlay should be removed.
Tax Lot 1211
One final issue needs to be resolved. The applicant requests that Tax Lot 1211 be rezoned
from one zoning designation, AG Agricultural, to two zoning designations, R-1 Low-Density
Residential and R-2 Medium-Density Residential. As discussed above, the proposed zone change
satisfies the approval criteria for the requested zone change. Because Tax Lot 1211 is proposed to
be split-zoned, it is not immediately apparent where the boundary between the R-1 Low-Density
Residential zone and the R-2 Medium-Density Residential zone should be located. As discussed
above, the southern 15 acres of Tax Lot 1211 has a Metro Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential. This designation is documented by an excerpt from the WAP (Exhibit I of the
applicant's July 1, 2013 zone change application) that has a large-scale map generally showing a
Medium Density Residential area in the southern portion of what is now Tax Lot 1211. There is
also a more detailed, smaller-scale map submitted by the applicant (Site Map Proposed Zoning
attached to the staff report) showing an east-west line marking the proposed boundary
approximately a third of the way up Tax Lot 1211 from Ayres Road.
In its zone change application, the applicant states:
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 9
"Because there is an unclear transition between plan designations, there is some
ambiguity as to where the designation boundary lies. The applicant will defer to the City
as to its interpretation of its own plan maps about the exact location of the [split-
zoning] boundary."
Although 1 agree with the applicant's request to rezone the property, including the split-
zoning of Tax Lot 1211, the lack of a precise description on the proposed split-zone boundary
makes it difficult to establish the boundary. While it would have been preferable to have a legal
description of the proposed boundary that I could rely upon, I understand the applicant's position.
The applicant was concerned that if it proposed the exact boundary, an opponent or the City could
oppose the application on the basis that the proposed boundary is incompatible with the
applicable plan policies because of an inaccurate legal description.
The best map of Tax Lot 1211 in the record that has been drawn to my attention is the site
map attached to the staff report. At the public hearing, the applicant's representative stated that
the site map attached to the staff report is accurate and drawn to scale. According to the
applicant's representative, the site map could be enlarged to provide the precise location of the
proposed split-zoning boundary. Opponents objected to using the site map to locate the
boundary, but did not provide any legal argument against such use. I am not aware of any legal
basis that prevents me from using the site map to establish the boundary. While this is a less than
ideal situation, in lieu of having a legal description to rely upon, I find that the boundary between
the R-1 Low-Density Residential and R-2 Medium-Density zone on Tax Lot 1211 is located as shown
on the site map attached to the staff report.
DECISION
Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES
the applicant's request for: (1) a zone change from R-1 Low-Density Residential/SR Overlay to R-1
Low-Density Residential without the SR Overlay for Tax Lots 304, 305, and 306; (2) a zone change
from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential for Tax Lots 1200, 1201, 1202, and 1207; and
(3) a zone change from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential and R-2 Medium-Density
Residential for Tax Lot 1211 with the boundary between the two zones as shown on the site map
attached to the staff report.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013. Mailed this day of September, 2013.
Fred Wilson
Hearings Official
SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 10