Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Atrium Building – Sloat Room www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541)682-5481. WEDNESDAY, November 13, 2013 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION County Farm Landbank (PT 13-4) Assessors Map: 17-03-17-11 Tax Lot: 800 Decision: Approval of tentative partition to create two lots Appellant: Michael Reeder for Wally and Dianna Graff Lead City Staff: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the proposal. 4. Public testimony from those in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene-or.us/hearingsofficial.  Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 MEMORANDUM (541) 682-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.eugene-or.gov Date: November 4, 2013 To: Ken Helm, Hearings Official From: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner Subject: Appeal of Tentative Partition Plan Approval for County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) __________________________________________________________________________________ Background: On October 3, 2013, the Planning Director granted tentative partition plan approval with six conditions, under the Needed Housing criteria at EC 9.8220, to divide property, located at the southwest corner of Park View Drive and County Farm Road, into two parcels. The City of Eugene currently owns the subject property as a land-bank site for affordable housing. The property is being partitioned into two parcels to facilitate the transfer of the subject property to two non-profit housing sponsors for the development of affordable housing. The Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) will acquire Parcel 1; St Vincent de Paul (SVDP) will acquire Parcel 2. The subject property is approximately five acres and is zoned R-2 Medium-Density Residential. The Planning Director’s written decision granting tentative partition plan approval is attached for reference, as it provides background information, findings regarding compliance with the applicable approval criteria, and other details of the approval (see Attachment A). On October 8, 2013, notice of the decision was provided in accordance with EC 9.7220. On October 18, 2013, Micheal Reeder filed an appeal of the Planning Director’s written decision on behalf of Wally and Dianna Graff, owners and residents of 2308 Park View Drive, which is located about 860 feet west of the subject property. The appellant argues that the Planning Director erroneously approved the tentative partition. The assignment of error is based EC 9.8220(5)(b). The appellant’s written statement is attached for reference (see Attachment B). Staff’s response to the appeal is provided below. The public hearing for this appeal is scheduled for November 13, 2013 and public notice of the appeal hearing was mailed in accordance with applicable code requirements on October 24, 2013. As described in the public notice, the decision on this tentative partition appeal is subject to the procedural requirements of Eugene Code (EC) Sections 9.7600 through 9.7635, and the public hearing _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) November 2013 Page 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 for this appeal will be conducted according to quasi-judicial hearing procedures in state law and described at EC 9.7065 through 9.7095. Pursuant to EC 9.7630, the Hearings Official shall affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s tentative partition approval. EC 9.7630(2) clarifies that the Hearings Official can only reverse or modify the Planning Director’s decision if he finds that the Planning Director failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the approval criteria. It is noted that the applicable approval criteria are the Needed Housing provisions at EC 9.8220, which is the City’s clear and objective criteria for partitioning lands that are needed for housing. Since the submittal of the appeal, staff has received no additional letters in response to the appeal notice. Any written testimony or other evidence submitted between the date of this memorandum and the appeal hearing will be forwarded for consideration as part of the decision on this appeal. In addition to any public testimony or other evidence that may be forwarded or presented at the upcoming public hearing, please review the attached items from the application file. Appeal Issue and Staff Response: The appeal essentially focuses on one approval criterion, EC 9.8220(5). The appellant states: “The Planning Director erroneously approved the Application because the Application fails to provide for adequate and safe pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, and neighborhood activity centers as required by EC 9.8220(5)(b).” The Planning Director’s decision determined that EC 9.8220(5)(a)-(c) did not apply to the subject partition, which is as follows: EC 9.8220(5) If the provisions of EC 9.8220(2) require a public street, or if the applicant proposes the creation of a public street, the following criteria also apply: (a) The proposed land uses and densities within the partition are consistent with the land use designation(s) shown on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, as refined in any applicable refinement plan. (b) Provision of pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation among buildings located within the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. (c) The street layout of the proposed partition shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the sum of proposed partition parcels and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. The Planning Director concluded that the above criterion did not apply because EC 9.8220(2) did not require a new street and the applicant did not propose the creation of a public street. The appellant states: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) November 2013 Page 2 HO Agenda - Page 2  The PD Decision attempts to sidestep the requirements found in EC 9.8220(5)(b) by arguing that this provision does not apply because the infrastructure constructed pursuant to City Contract No. 2013-0008 (i.e. the intended extension of Matt Drive from Park View Drive to the southern boundary of the Landbank site) is ‘already’ an existing public street. See page 9 of the PD Decision. However, the Application fails to meet the internal circulation standard, as well as fails to provide safe and adequate pedestrian and bicycle circulation off-site. The appellant asserts that EC 9.8220(5) applies because Matt Drive, which has already been constructed through the subject property, is not yet a public street because it has not been dedicated to the public. The appellant states that creation of a public street is not merely the physical construction of the infrastructure that is intended to be dedicated as a public street, but the formal, legal dedication of such area that encompasses the physical infrastructure. Hence, the appellant asserts that platting these lots will include right-of-way dedication over Matt Drive to create a public street. Based on the argument that EC 9.8220(5)(a)-(c) applies to this partition application, the appellant asserts that (b) requires off-site extension of Matt Drive through lands to the south and improvement of County Farm Road adjacent to the southerly properties to Crescent Avenue. Staff disagrees with the appellant’s assertion that EC 9.8220(5)(a)-(c) applies. Even if EC 9.8220(5)(a)- (c) applies, staff disagrees that the proposed partition, as conditioned by the Planning Director, fails to comply with EC 9.8220(5)(b). Further, staff notes that several of the appellant’s assertions about what is required of the subject partition do not relate to the Needed Housing approval criteria. Staff addresses each of these arguments below. The appellant asserts that EC 9.8220(5) applies based on the right-of-way dedication over Matt Drive. Staff notes that EC 9.8220(5) is invoked “If the provisions of EC 9.8220(2) require a public street, or if the applicant proposes the creation of a public street…” EC 9.8220(2)(b) requires demonstration of compliance with Standards for Streets, Alleys and Other Public Ways (EC 9.6800-9.6875). One of those standards is the street connectivity standards at EC 9.6815(2). The Planning Director’s decision confirms that no new streets are needed to satisfy the street connectivity standards. The appellant asserts that Matt Drive, which has been built through the subject property, is not yet a street. EC 9.0500 defines “Street” as “an improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, that is created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more lots or parcel…” Public Way is also defined as follows: “Any street, road, alley, right-of-way, pedestrian or bicycle easement or accessway, or utility easement for public use that is controlled by the city, county, or state.” Matt Drive is a public street on public property. It satisfies the definitions of “street” and “public way,” which do not require dedication, but only that the way be controlled by the city. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, public streets do not have to be dedicated rights-of-way. In fact, a number of streets throughout the City are on property owned in fee-simple by the City (as compared to public streets that consist of dedicated right-of-way). For example, the segment of Amazon Parkway, between East 29th Avenue and Hilyard Street, is located on City parkland with no right-of-way dedications. This is not uncommon in other jurisdictions as well, for example, ODOT commonly owns the lands underlying their roadways. By requiring that Matt Drive be dedicated to the public through _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) November 2013 Page 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 this partition, the City is essentially reserving rights to the public street in anticipation of dividing the property into two parcels that will then be transferred out of City ownership. The partition is not the only means of making this reservation. The City could dedicate right-of-way today, totally independent of the partition process. The only reason the City has not dedicated right-of-way previously is because the City owns the property and thus controls Matt Drive without any dedication; hence there has been no compelling need for that additional paperwork. For the reasons stated above, the Planning Director correctly concluded that EC 9.8220(5)(a)-(c) do not apply to this partition. Even if EC 9.8220(5)(b) did apply to this partition it does not require the off-site improvements suggested by the appellant. The appellant asserts that there is “inadequate internal circulation” and “inadequate offsite pedestrian and bicycle circulation” (see pages 2 and 3 of the appeal statement). This terminology appears nowhere within the Needed Housing approval criteria, including criterion EC 9.8220(5). The rest of the appeal statement (pages 4 through 8) relies on “public safety” and “City Council Direction,” none of which relates to the applicable Needed Housing approval criteria. The street connectivity standards at EC 9.6815(2) require connections “in the direction of all existing or planned streets…” This language clearly limits the applicant’s obligation to on-site improvements, by using the term “in the direction of.” This standard in no way requires applicants to dedicate and improve streets across other adjacent parcels (which they do not own), as suggested by the appellant. The applicant has already met their obligation through the construction of Matt Drive on the subject property. Furthermore, the partition, as conditioned by the Planning Director, complies with this criterion because the proposed parcels will abut three public streets and approval is conditioned upon those streets being improved with sidewalks. Specifically, the Planning Director conditioned tentative approval (No. 5) on the following: The applicant shall pave that portion of County Farm Road which is adjacent to the development site to the width specified in EC 9.6870 Street Width, providing for drainage and the construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street trees and street lights according to the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Bikeways and Accessways and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to Eugene Code Chapter 7 and other adopted plans and policies. The Planning Director’s decision (page 6) also noted the following requirements: Along Matt Drive, there is sufficient right of way to accommodate both the street trees and the setback sidewalks, thus, the sidewalks along Matt Drive shall be setback sidewalks as provided in the City’s adopted design standards guidelines. To avoid damaging the sidewalks during construction of the development, construction of the sidewalks on Park View Drive and Matt Drive will be required through the building permit process (the sidewalk requirement is applicable to building permit applicants and, if not previously satisfied, must be satisfied at that time). _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) November 2013 Page 4 HO Agenda - Page 4 As such, the transportation amenities required by EC 9.8220(5)(b) will be provided within the development site, as well as to adjacent residential areas and transit stops. For the reasons discussed above, even if EC 9.8820(2)(b) applies, the conditioned partition complies with the criteria. Although not an approval criterion for the subject partition, and therefore not relevant to the scope of the subject appeal, the City has mechanisms in place for street improvements to be provided on an incremental basis, as properties develop and contribute their proportional share, or as a City-initiated project. With regard to incremental improvements provided by development, staff notes that the adjacent lands to the south have the potential for further development and division. In fact, a portion of the properties to the south have received tentative subdivision approval (i.e. Hayward Subdivision, City File ST 07-5), which will extend Matt Drive within 135 feet of the south boundary of the subject property. The appropriate time for extending street improvements to the south would be when those properties further develop. With regard to County Farm Road, the City has been collecting assessments from developments abutting the roadway and the improvements have been identified on the 2017-2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Needs List. Staff Recommendation: Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings and specific clarifications provided in response to the appeal issues raised, staff concludes that the Planning Director’s decision was not in error or otherwise inconsistent with the applicable tentative partition approval criteria at EC 9.8220. With the additional findings provided by staff and absent additional testimony or evidence to indicate otherwise, as of the date of this report, staff recommends that the Hearings Official affirm the decision of the Planning Director granting conditional tentative partition plan approval for County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4). Attachments: Attachment A: Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) Attachment B: Appeal Form and Written Statement Attachment C: Air Photo The full application file will be made available at the public hearing on this matter, and is otherwise available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices. Staff is forwarding the Hearings Official a full-size copy of the applicant’s plans, written statement, and supporting documentation submitted with the application, as well as a copy of all information received within and after the initial 14-day comment period. For More Information: Please contact Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682-5437 or by e-mail, at becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Farm Land Bank (PT 13-4) November 2013 Page 5 HO Agenda - Page 5 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 6 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 7 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 8 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 9 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 10 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 11 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 12 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 13 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 14 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 15 Attachment A HO Agenda - Page 16  Planning Development Planning City of Eugene B 99 West 10 h Avenue 2013 Eugene Oregon 97401 541 682 5377 5572 FAX 541 082 gov or www eugene APPEAL OF PLANNING D C ORJ S D ECISION This appeal form applies to appeals of interpretation of this Land Use Code made according to EC 0 1 9 040 and to appeals to all Type II land use applications The appeal of the Planning Director s decision provides for a review of an administrative decision by a higher review authority specified in this Land Use Code The Planning Director s decision may be affirmed reversed or modified Please check one of the following Adjustment Review Modification ndards Review Minor Conditional Use Permit Major Planned Unit Development Subdivision Site Review Tentative Plan Code Interpretation Willamette Greenways Final Plat Hazardous Materials Review Partition Traffic Impact Analysis Tentative Plan Historic Property Final Plat Vacation Alteration Improved Public W R O Demolition Planned Unit Development Improved Public Easement Moving Final Unimproved Public R O W with dedication Re ariance Site Review File Name COUNTY FARM LANDBANK Citv File Number PT 4 13 Date of Planning Director Decision October 3 2013 Mailed October 8 2013 Date Appeal Filed October 18 2013 This date must be within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Director s decision Attach a written appeal statement The appeal statement shall include a written statement of issues on appeal and be limited to the issues raised in the appeal The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the Planning Director s decision is inconsistent with applicable criteria Please contact staff at the Permit and Information Center 99 West 10 x Avenue 541 5377 682 for further information on the appeal process Appeal of Planning Director s Decision Paue 1 of 2 HO Agenda - Page 17  A filing fee must accompany an appeal of a Planning Director decision with some exceptions for neighborhood groups The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the required fee or check on the web at cneplannin i cu www Acknowledgment I we the undersigned hereby acknowledge that I we have read the above appeal form understand the requirements for filing an appeal of a planning director decision and state that the information supplied is as complete and detailed as is currently possible to the best of my our knowledge APPELLANT Name print Michael M Reeder Phone 541 0188 484 Address 800 Willamette Street Suite 800 State Zip City Eugene OR 97401 Signature APPELLANT Name print Wally and Dianna Graf f Phone Address 541 Willamette Street Suite 106 State Zip City Eugene OR 97405 Signature IF this appeal is being filed by the affected recognized neighborhood association complete the following Name of Association Appeal of Planning Director s Decision Noe 2 of 2 HO Agenda - Page 18  ARNOLD GALLAGHER A Professional Corporation ATTORNEYS AT LAW U Bank Center 800 S Telephone 541 4840188 Correspondence 800 Willamette Street Facsimile 541 4840536 P Box 1758 O Eugene OR 97401 E M ail mreeder@arnoldgallagher com Eugene OR 9744 1758 www lagher arnoldgal com MICHEAL M REEDER October 18 2013 Becky Taylor Associate Planner City of Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue U U ocr 18 1 2013 Eugene Oregon 97401 w Pf Re Appeal Statement County Farm Road Landbank PT Dear Ms Taylor As you know I represent Wally and Dianna Graff owners and residents of 2308 Park View Drive Eugene very near the County Fann Landbank site that is subject to an application for a Tentative Partition PT 13 4 the Application On October 3 2013 the Planning Director conditionally approved the Application the PD Decision Please accept this letter as my clients appeal statement supporting the appeal of the PD Decision EC 7 1 9 605 Timeliness of Appeal Standing to Appeal The PD Decision was mailed on October 8 2013 and the mailed notice states that any appeal must be received by 0 5 0m p on October 20 2013 This appeal is being filed on October 18 2013 and is therefore timely Additionally my clients provided written comments in regards to the Application and are adversely affected and aggrieved by the initial decision EC 7 2 9 605 Appeal Form Appeal Fee This appeal statement is attached to the appeal form approved by the City Manager signed by both me and my client Dianna Graff and includes a check in the amount of 3 1 4079 50 of the original application fee paid by the City as applicant as the required appeal fee EC 7 3 9 605 Appeal Statement of The Eugene Code EC requires that an appeal include a statement of issues on appeal and that the appeal statement explain specifically how the Planning Director s decision is inconsistent with applicable criteria HO Agenda - Page 19 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 2 Statement of Issue Assignment of Errorh The Planning Director erroneously approved the Application because the Application fails to provide pedestrian bicycle and transit circulation among buildings located within the development site and fails to providefor adequate and safe pedestrian bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearbv residential areas transit stops and neighborhood activity centers as required by EC b 5 9 8 220 Explanation of Assignment of Error By proposing to not extend Matt Drive south to connect to Crescent Avenue and by proposing to not provide curbs gutters sidewalks and bicycle lanes along the entire frontage west side of County Farm Road from Park View Drive to Crescent Avenue the City violates EC b 5 9 8 220 The Application also turns from its obligations of public safety and ignores the direction from City Council to provide safety measures including sidewalks along the entire unimproved portion of County Farm Road from Park View Drive to Crescent Avenue EC 8 b 5 9 220 The Application does not meet the standard found in EC 8 b 5 9 220 wherein the applicant must provide for the following pedestrian bicycle and transit circulation among buildings located within the development site as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas transit stops neighborhood activity centers office parks and industrial parks provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements Nearby means uses within mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists The PD Decision attempts to sidestep the requirements found in EC b 5 9 8 220 by arguing that this provision does not apply because the infrastructure constructed pursuant to Contract City No 2013 0008 e i the intended extension of Matt Drive from Park View Drive to the southern boundary of the Landbank site is already an existing public street See page 9 of the PD Decision However the Application fails to meet the internal circulation standard as well as fails to provide safe and adequate pedestrian and bicycle circulation off site Inadequate Internal Circulation The proposed developers of the Landbank site stated There will be a lot of kids in Bascom Village It is obvious that this is the case since the May 31 2011 St Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County Inc SVDP and Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County HACSA Bascom Village joint Response to the City s Request for Proposal for the Landbank site explicitly states that over 30 of the units for Bascom Village are for 3 and b 4 edroom units and another 42 6 of the units will have 2 bedrooms The proposal for Bascom Village also included a HO Agenda - Page 20 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 3 Head Start program The large number of units compared to the parcel size in addition to having insufficient room for parking leaves virtually no open space dictating that the children s play area double as access for emergency responder vehicles There is no evidence in the record whether emergency responders will be able to safely access the project through its single point of entry which is the same and only exit that project residents would use to evacuate the project in an emergency To access the offsite street parking on Park View Drive project residents will need to either cut through adjacent neighborhood streets from the west or they will need to perform tUurns or utilize the private driveways of nearby residents to turn around when accessing the offsite parking spaces via County Farm Road from the east The projects only exit for 128 vehicles is located directly opposite Matt Drive to the north which services 72 family single residences During peak hours such as during the morning commute as many as 200 vehicles will be attempting to access Park View Drive at the same access point Those drivers will be attempting to merge onto Park View Drive with vehicles traveling from the neighborhoods to the west which use Park View Drive to access County Farm Road In addition the project proposes an on site Head Start program that will be open to not just Project residents but the greater community as well and incorporates 4 offsite parking spaces again on the southside of Park View Drive for parents who are dropping off and picking up their children from the Head Start program The project is a recipe for disaster mixing large numbers of school age children with heavy volumes of traffic attempting to exit to County Farm Road through a narrow local neighborhood street at the same time the Project will be drawing in school buses and parents dropping off children Perhaps if the developer and the City had proposed to extend Matt Drive from Park View Drive to Crescent Avenue the internal circulation issues could be addressed However the Application fails to do so Inadequate Offsite Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation The PD Decision states EC 8 2 9 220 does not require a public street and the applicant does not propose the creation of a public street thus the criteria in EC 8 c a 5 9 220 do not apply Page 9 The PD Decision is in error EC 8 5 9 220 states If the provisions of EC 8 2 9 220 require a public street or if the applicant proposed the creation of a public street the following criteria also apply First contrary to the PD Decision s assertion the existing pavement located on the Landbank site that was constructed under City Contract No 0008 2013 is not a public street because it is not yet dedicated to the public Merely because it is designed and constructed to eventually be a public street does not make it in fact a public street The creation of a public street is not merely the physical construction of the infrastructure that is intended to be dedicated as a public street but the formal legal dedication of such area that encompasses the physical infrastructure So to be clear the City is in fact proposing to create a public street as part of its partition process for the Landbank site Second even if the existing pavement located on the site is considered a public street prior to dedication to the public the mere fact that the public street was constructed prior to the tentative HO Agenda - Page 21 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 4 partition approval does not relieve the City of its obligation to meet the standard of EC 8 5 9 220 This is because there is no temporal requirement imbedded in EC 8 5 9 220 It is the provisions of EC 8 2 9 220 that are the subject of the standard found at EC 8 5 9 220 111 other words the Bascom Village development for which this partition is required requires a public street i e the extension of Matt Drive in order to meet the requirements of EC 8 The is 2 9 220 partition dependent upon the construction and dedication of a public street i e the extension of Matt Drive The City s argument is a form over substance argument and it fails It is the City s attempt to skirt the requirement of EC 8 b 5 9 220 Regardless of whether the physical construction of the extension of Matt Drive is in fact already completed EC 8 2 9 220 requires a public street It makes no difference whether that street is already in existence The trigger for compliance with the standards of EC 8 5 9 220 is whether such a street is required not whether such street exists or does not exist The City cannot show compliance with the standards of EC 8 b 5 9 220 and the PD Decision must therefore be reversed and the Application denied Public Safety In my June 18 2013 oppositional letter to you on behalf of my clients I explained in great detail why the Application was flawed We took the position that the City or developer is required to provide curbs gutters sidewalks street lighting and street trees along the entire unimproved section of County Farm Road not just that portion that abuts the Landbank site In that letter I stated The City acknowledges that the segrnent along County Farm Road is unsafe However the City does not explain why providing curbs glitters sidewalks street lights and street trees as required by the EC would be infeasible or hv 14 such improvements to County Farm Road will create unnecessary safetv concerns Perhaps the City is referring to the fact that even if the Landbank Site developer improves County Farm Road along the Landbank Site that abuts County Far 111 Road only and leaves a significant portion of County Farm Road unimproved to the south that County Farm Road will still be unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists We agree However the solution is not to defer the improvernents creating a more hazardous situation The remedy is to deny or withdraw the Application At the very least the City could make the improvements along the entire length of County Farm Road that does not have curbs gutters sidewalks etc so thatfuture residents of the Landbank Site would be able to walk and bike to the Lane Transit District bus stop and the other services near and along Coburg Road Crescent Avenue and Chad Drive The solution is not to ignore the safety issues Page 2 emphasis added My clients traffic engineer Kelly Sandow PE also provided a letter to you dated July 17 2013 wherein she concluded until the rnissing section of Matt Drive is completed County Farin Road will serve as the rnajor connection for pedestrians accessing services along Coburg Road to the south This connection should have sidewalks provided to improve pedestrian HO Agenda - Page 22 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 5 safety The City should strongly consider adding a sidewalk along County Fat III Roadfroin the County Farrn LandBanks s sic south property line to Coburg Road This addition will create a continuous sidewalk for the neighborhood and iinprove safety along this important pedestrian route Page 4 In response to my clients opposition and the letter from my clients traffic engineer Kelly Sandow the PD Decision imposes a condition of approval that requires the developer to provide curbs gutter sidewalks street lighting and street trees only along the portion of County Farm Road that abuts the Landbank site It does not provide for continuous safety infrastructure along the entire portion of County Fartn Road to Crescent Avenue as recommended by Ms Sandow Not only does the Application violate the requirements found in EC 8 b 5 9 220 but it is also bad policy since it endangers the safety of some of the City s most vulnerable population The May 31 2011 SVDP and HACSA Bascom Village joint Response to the City s Request for Proposal for the Landbank site explicitly states that over 30 of the units for Bascom Village are for 3 and b 4edroom units and another 42 6 of the units will have 2 bedrooms suggesting that there will be many children and other driving non residents who will rely heavily upon walking biking and bus service to meet their transportation needs It is irresponsible to not provide safe access to services located to the south of the proposed Bascom Village In my June 18 2013 letter to you I expressed our concern The Federal Highwav Administration FHWA reports that of the 5 4 00 pedestrians killed in traffic crashes with motor vehicles annually in the United States almost 8 percent are pedestrians killed while walking along the roadway s Not only do sidewalks snake pedestrian trips safer but it also encourages more 2 walking Below is a photograph Photo 1 taken from the FHWA website showing an example ofan uncomfortable and unsafe pedestrian path along a road in a suburban conarnunity It is strikingly similar to the stretch ofCounty Farm Road see Photo 2 beloil that does not have curbs gutters and sidewalks Photo 1 Example of unsafe conditions without sidewalks from FHWA website 1 See safety fhwa bike gov ped dot http tools solve walkways trifold Id By providing facilities that are more comfortable we can increase the number of trips made by walking Providing sidewalks widened paved shoulders or stabilized shoulders Research indicates that people will walk for recreational purposes if a facility is provided HO Agenda - Page 23 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 6 Below is Photo 2 a photograph of County Farm Road that abuts the Landbank Site This photo is looking south toward Crescent Avenite and the LTD bits stop Photo 2 County Fat in Road Photo 3 below shows the large Wildish trucks and other traffic that is representative of the types of vehicles that prix with pedestrians and bicvclists along this unimproved strip along County Farm Road Photo 3 County Farm Road looking northeast south of Park View Drive 1 i t J d4 NCI 14 C N I1 91 This is in stark contrast to the photo below Photo 4 that shows curbs gutters and sidewalks along a vacant parcel that serves another low income housing project HO Agenda - Page 24 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 7 Santa Clara Place Photo 4 Santa Clara Place on Santa Clara Avenue off ofRiver Road north of the Beltline Throughout the public process ofawarding the Landbank Site to the Bascom Village developers the proponents and City staffargued that the safety and sidewalks issues would be taken care of and that there was nothing to worry about For example Norton Cabell chair of Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board wrote in a Guest Viewpoint opinion article in The Register Guard on November 23 2011 the following The location of the nearest bus stop and the lack ofsidewalks to get there are a concern City staff already is working to figure out how to provide sidewalks along County Farm Road The City has already admitted that County Farm Road is problematicfor safety reasons But the City assured opponents ofthe Bascom Village project that it was working on a solution to those problems Pages 2 5 City Council Direction When the City Council deliberated on the SVDP HACSA joint response to the City s Landbank site RFP it was clear from the statements made by various City Councilors that the pedestrian and bicycle safety issues were of great concern I explained this fact in my June 18 2013 letter to you as follows The November 28 2011 City Council meeting minutes state Councilor Ortiz deterrninedfrom Ms Wheeler that staff was working to fund a solution to the lack of sidewalks serving the site Page 6 The minutes continue Councilor Pryor wanted the council to take definitive action to ensure that the street capacity issues brought up in testimonv were addressed and that the sidewalk access be required as part of the project Id The minutes also state Councilor Poling was concerned about the lack ofsidewalks and bicycle lanes on County Farm Road as well as about HO Agenda - Page 25 Becky Taylor Associate Planner October 18 2013 Page 8 bits routes Id Lastly the minittes state Councilor Clark appreciated the City s willingness to consider safety improvements to ensure the safety of Manager children using the road which was now a gravel road i e gravel shoulder with no sidewalks frequently traveled by large trucks Page 7 The Citv has vet to follow through on these promises Page 5 Providing curbs gutters sidewalks street lighting and street trees along the approximately 200 feet of the west side of County Farm Road that abuts the Landbank site is a good first step but it is inadequate and does not meet the intent of the City Council Conclusion The PD Decision should be reversed and the Application should be denied for the three reasons set forth above and summarized as follows 1 it violates EC 8 b 5 9 220 2 it is bad public policy and ignores public safety concerns and 3 it ignores direction from City Council to provide sidewalks and other safety infrastructure along the entire length of County Farm Road from Park View Drive to Crescent Avenue Very truly yours Micheal M Reeder Attorney for Wally and Dianna Graff jgh MMR Attachment Letter from Kelly Sandow PE cc Clients a w ttachment N F AGraff Wally Diamia andbank 18325 Site Partition Appeal 18325 Morrespondence Statement Ltr to Becky Taylor 101513 Appeal doc HO Agenda - Page 26 SANDOWENGINEERING July 17 2013 lam 5d Michael Reeder Arnold Gallagher P C 800 Willamette Street Suite 800 Eugene OR 97401 RE Bascom Village Sidewalks Dear Mr Reeder Per your request I have evaluated the decision by the City of Eugene not to require the County Farm Landbank project to provide a sidewalk adjacent to their site along County Farm Road It is my professional opinion as a Transportation Engineer that a sidewalk at this location is important and should be provided This sidewalk will not only serve the needs of the residents of this development but the need as an important neighborhood connection to provide safe and efficient pedestrian connectivity as well The following elaborates my position that a sidewalk at this location is necessary COUNTY FARM LANDBANK SITE ACCESS The consideration of sidewalks along County Farm for the development frontage should be based upon site usage and modal choices existing and future connectivity for vehicles and pedestrians and the location and routing to essential local services All of these factors should be evaluated to ensure that safe and efficient access to the site is provided for all residents Site Usage The site is proposed as a multi family affordable housing complex The objective of this type of project is to serve the needs of community members that are at or below 50 of the median income level Modal Choices Vehicle trips to affordable housing complexes are lower than vehicle trips to market rate apartment complexes Studies I have done within Eugene have illustrated that there are up to 30 fewer vehicle trips to affordable housing complexes over vehicle trips to market rate complexes Instead these studies have shown there is heavier reliance on the usage of transit pedestrian and bicycle trips Therefore it is important to provide safe and efficient access for all modal choices for this development This access needs to be done at the time of development for the immediate safety of the residents 2911 TENNYSON AVENUE EUGENE OREGON 97404 o 513 541 3376 HO Agenda - Page 27 Letter from Kelly Sandow PE RE Bascom Village Sidewalk July 17 2013 Page 2 Site Access Connectivity The site is bound by Park View Street to the North and County Farm Road to the East Matt Drive will be developed through the property Park View Street neighborhood collector has been developed to urban standards with setback sidewalks on both sides except along the development site frontage and connects County Farm Road to Lakeview Drive County Farm Road major collector has not been updated to the City s current standards for this classification of roadway there are no sidewalks or bike lanes however a wide shoulder is present along both sides County Farm provides direct access to Coburg Road Coburg Road provides a connection to essential services including transit employment and commercial activities Matt Drive will be developed through the center of the property from Park View to the southern property line There will be approximately 250 feet of undeveloped private property from the south end of the development site before Matt Drive picks up again and continues to Crescent Avenue The only vehicle pedestrian or bicycle access to the site until such time that Matt Drive is connected to the south will be from Park View Drive The nearest major roadway is Coburg Road It is reasonable to assume that a majority of trips will access the site via County Farm Road and Coburg Road as it is the most efficient and direct access to the site The Traffic Study prepared by Branch Engineering evaluating the zone change for this project projected 90 of vehicle traffic will use Coburg Road for access County Farm Access to Services The nearest public transit stops to the development are located along Coburg Road and Crescent Avenue Routes 66 and 67 provide the most convenient routing at 30 minute headways from 7 m a to 11 m p The nearest transit stops for these routes are located along Crescent Avenue just west of Coburg Road and just east of Chuckanut Street Attachment 1 illustrates the walking and biking routes to the site from the transit stops Pedestrians traveling along Coburg Road to and from the transit stop will save about 600 feet and 5 minutes of direction out travel of Coburg Road provides a myriad of retail and employment opportunities for residents of this development The closest retail services are located west of Coburg Road and south of Crescent Avenue These shopping centers include Shopko Petco Costco and medical offices Coburg Road provides the most direct access to these amenities with any other existing routes adding over 15 minutes of extra travel time for a pedestrian County Farm to Coburg Road provides the most direct and efficient route for pedestrians accessing transit stops or nearby commercial or medical offices This important route should be developed with curbs gutters sidewalks and lighting to improve safety for residents who will use this route SANDOW ENGINEERING 291 1 Tennyson avenue Suite 400 Eugene Oregon 97408 541 3376 513 HO Agenda - Page 28 Letter from Kelly Sandow PE RE Bascom Village Sidewalk July 17 2013 Page 3 NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY The second important factor to consider is the current and future neighborhood connectivity and needs for pedestrians The sidewalk along County Farm Road will create an important connection for pedestrian circulation within the Gilham neighborhood The sidewalk that should be developed with this site will infill an important route to improve safety and efficiency of access In January 2013 1 worked with the 4 1 School District to evaluate the Gilham School area for a Safe Routes to School Study This analysis evaluated current and future alternative transportation routes and identified deficiencies along these routes that would create actual or perceived safety issues This study identified Park View Drive as a major route that currently serves and will continue to serve the needs of students walking or biking to school The study showed that many children walk and bike to school from the neighborhoods east of Crescent Village The children cut through the field north of Crescent Village and Kinney Loop cross Coburg Road and travel County Farm Road to Park View Drive to access the school This route is illustrated in Attachment 2 Aside from the field the only section of the route that does not have sidewalks is the section of County Farm Road between Coburg Road and Park View Drive This development s sidewalk infill will complete an important section for students walking or biking to school Recently Spectrum Retirement Center has been approved and will be creating a new public street Spectrum Road that will connect to Coburg Road and will have sidewalks on both sides The street is expected to be built later this summer Right now the next phase of Crescent Village is being designed and is expected to be built in the next few years This development is proposed as a 200 unit family multi apartment complex The developer is currently negotiating to provide the roadway connection from their site to Spectrum Road This roadway will also include sidewalks The Crescent Village apartments will provide a pedestrian connection to Grand Cayman Drive When these developments are completed there will be a paved connection for the families east of Crescent Village to access Gilham Elementary School This creates an even greater need for a sidewalk along the development frontage on County Farm Road This connection is illustrated in Attachment 3 The City of Eugene s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan has identified County Farm Road from Coburg Road to the north with a proposed sidewalk infill The inclusion of a sidewalk for this development is consistent with this plan CONCLUSION The City of Eugene should reconsider their decision not to require a sidewalk for the County Farm s frontage on County Farm Road The sidewalk will provide safe and efficient access for Landbank the residents of the project to access transit retail and community services Additionally the sidewalk will improve neighborhood pedestrian connectivity to Gilham Elementary School Matt Drive is planned to have a future extension from the development property to Crescent Avenue Once Matt Drive is fully completed it will serve as a very viable pedestrian route for this SANDOW ENGINEERING 2911 Tennyson avenue Suite 400 Eugene Oregon 97408 541 3376 513 HO Agenda - Page 29 Letter from Kelly Sandow PE RE Bascom Village Sidewalk July 17 2013 Page 4 neighborhood However until the missing section of Matt Drive is completed County Farm Road will serve as the major connection for pedestrians accessing services along Coburg Road to the south This connection should have sidewalks provided to improve pedestrian safety The City should strongly consider adding a sidewalk along County Farm Road from the County Farm s south property line to Coburg Road This addition will create a continuous sidewalk for LandBanks the neighborhood and improve safety along this important pedestrian route Should you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at your convenience Sincerely K y Sandow PE SANDOW ENGINEERING 2911 Tennyson avenue Suite 400 Eugene Oregon 97408 513 541 3376 HO Agenda - Page 30 HO Agenda - Page 31 HO Agenda - Page 32 HO Agenda - Page 33 d E ID 691 o m y N Q I n 1 3 0 O L C O N CD a p O to Lo m a O N H LL U a U c c N Qj 00 co co 0 0 c c c eO C O C O C C co N w m m m i a rn w E N c o N r L U T E 76 cu E co II FOE u N O V n n H Q N LL fn Q 0 O U LL O a a Q d 9 lM Y I r to Efl ER ER ER 6s Efl Ef3 ER U o c g a E n o m 0 O U a U U N L 7 O c O O C C C M a co H LL J 0 cu N o O F 0 O L Q d C C X co O f4 C 0 E H D C a 0 1l V r o C a c 0 E r r a 0 6 D a b o Q 6s LU Q Q a J a co a Q IL in cn HO Agenda - Page 34  t ii i t O I O O I O 1 O li II 1 II I v I I v I O I II II II l I I 1 11 IT II 11 I I C13 11I 07 I J 07 I 07 I 3 6 I I C I I f l I I I I ti ti ti 1 ti I I I I I I II O 11 M t C7 7 C 1 C 7 I II C II Z I II Co N i 1 I 1 I 11 U 1 1 10 Cf3 I I II W co 11 r I I r I II 1C7 1 1 II 11 U O co I 4A I EJ fA I b3 I I I L i t y r I I 1 I LC3 i t i I I 11 I CU E I I Ii I II I I I tl II L II II fZ N I It 1 1 I fl r 11 L 11 II W 00 U II I I 1 1 E II 7 D II II W CJJ CD O I1 I1 L 11 n W 11 I Z II CU II CU II O I i t W F I I I I Q 11 L C 11 II CM 1 f II U I N 11 1 1 O E W t l Q W 4l 7 II O I I E In 1 1 II W V II Q O to L O II r II O 11 1 W Q LO II Q O 1d W 11 r II E II 11 L d O I I U U O CU I I 11 n C3 I II O 2 07 11 m d J a C Cl II II U II I i oa 1 O 11 C CD C CU C I I 7 11 U f l II I O 11 r Q 1 0 41 0 11 it T II I H Z3 O II C Q O W 11 C 11 L I 11 i t Z I 11 C 13r F 2 U f 1 L I I C I I it UIH C I 7 II 10 MCD 10 it O 11 O C 11 II D C17 II r E O Q 41 II I 11 O II II J L O II d L ctY J O II CU II Cl E 11 m W II Q EL J F II C 11 Y a II i I 4 LL Q I I CU I I 1O N I I I co 0 W 11 O O Cm 11 CF 11 j I I II 07 U Of II a W 1 1 II 11 W W I1 r L p 11 CU II a II 11 1 I j 1 4 J CY 11 a II II n n II tl 1 2 II CU C W O II 3 II 10 11 II C U 11 Q 7 U Z 11 3 fl CU 3 11 II II W Cl Q U 11 11 Q O Q U W Q HO Agenda - Page II1135 3 11 11 r d 3 3 11 11  wn i ng D ale Ave St Dale Ave Devon Ave Attachment C Riverbend Ave Park Wo o d D r Lakeview Dr County Farm Rd Belle Terra Dr Pa De von Ave rk Matt Dr Vie w Dr Park View Dr P a rk Grove Dr Subject Property C heryl St Co un ty Fa Devon Ave rm Rd Wingate St Kinney Lp Matt Dr Chuckanut St Coburg Rd Kinney Lp D ayna Ln W ingate St Da yna Ln ´ Crescent Ave Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Ft 0 120 240 480 November 04, 2013 HO Agenda - Page 36