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, September 27, 2017 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION Alder Springs (SR 17-2) Assessors Map: 17-04-14-32 Tax Lots: 8600, 8700, 8900 Decision: Appeal of Planning Director’s conditional approval of a Site Review for 106 multi- family apartment units. Appellant: Steve Norris / River Road Community Organization Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: erik.berg@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.  Atrium Building 99 west 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Memorandum Date: September 20, 2017 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division Donna Stark, Public Works Engineering Subject: Appeal of Alder Springs Site Review Approval (City File SR 17-2) ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED: To hold a public hearing on September 27, 2017 and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s approval of a Needed Housing Site Review for the Alder Springs multi-family residential project. BACKGROUND: On August 17, 2017, the Planning Director approved a Site Review application for the Alder Springs multi-family residential project. The subject site is located near the northwest corner of the intersection of Howard Avenue and North Park Avenue. The property is south of Maxwell Road, and directly east of the Maxwell Connector. The applicant proposes to construct 106 apartment units in 14 two-story buildings, configured as a mixture of 4, 6, 8 and 12-plexes and one standalone single story manager’s unit. The site is split zoned GO General Office and R-2 Medium-Density Residential. The area to be developed is located entirely in the GO zoned portion of the site. The R-2 zoned portion of the site is almost entirely a Goal 5 protected wetland and riparian area; this portion of the site will remain undeveloped. No new land division is proposed in conjunction with the Alder Springs development. The subject property was created as a result of the Pennington Acres Subdivision (City Files ST 14-7; SF 15-4). The property was also involved in a subsequent subdivision, Pennington Acres Phase 2 (City Files ST 16-8; SF 17-2). The purpose of the subject Site Review approval is to develop lots that were created by these previously approved and platted subdivisions. 1 On August 30, 2017, an appeal of the Site Review approval was filed by Steve Norris on behalf of the River Road Community Organization. The associated Adjustment Review application (ARB 17-1) was not appealed. Public notice of the September 27, 2017 appeal hearing was mailed on September 6, 2017. A previous notice was sent for a September 20 hearing; after this notice was sent the September 20 hearing was cancelled and rescheduled for September 27. Since the notice was sent written public testimony from one neighbor was submitted; this testimony has been forwarded to the Hearings Official and is available in the application record for reference. If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this memo it will be forwarded to the Hearings Official and added to the record. Further background information on this appeal, including the applicant’s Site Review application, is included in the full record of materials provided separately. A vicinity map and reduced site plan are included as Attachments A and B. The written appeal statement is included as Attachment C, and the Planning Director’s Site Review decision is included as Attachment D. EUGENE HEARINGS OFFICAL’S ROLE: The Eugene Hearings Official serves our community in a “quasi-judicial” role to make decisions on individual land use applications in the context of the Eugene Code. In this case, the Hearings Official must decide to affirm, reverse or modify the Planning Director’s decision based on the applicable approval criteria. The first step will be a public hearing, during which the Hearings Official will have an opportunity to hear from any interested parties who wish to provide testimony, including new evidence. Following the hearing, the Hearings Official will consider the testimony presented at the public hearing, written testimony provided to the Hearings Official, and the record of the Planning Director’s decision. The Hearings Official’s decision will be issued within 15 days of the close of the record, following the public hearing. STAFF ROLE: City of Eugene Planning staff will be present throughout the public hearing to assist the Hearings Official. Staff will advise the Hearings Official with regard to process, location of materials in the record, and interpretation of land use code requirements. Staff may provide advice and recommendations based on their professional expertise and familiarity with the application and record of materials to date; the Hearings Official may choose whether or not to follow staff recommendations at his or her discretion. In addition to supporting the Hearings Official, staff also serve as a contact for applicants, neighbors and other interested parties. In this role, staff often hear from the people who may be directly impacted by a particular project or decision. When concerns are raised, staff works to help people better understand how to frame a concern in terms of the approval criteria. Staff listens carefully to all concerns, seeks to fully understand the issues and impacts of land use applications, and attempts to provide the best service possible to everyone involved. While all issues are important, staff also make every effort to help our community understand that all 2 land use decisions must be made based on the approval criteria located in the Eugene Code and our community’s adopted plans and policies. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: The appeal statement raises one appeal issue, identified below. To assist the Hearings Official in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. Excerpts from the appeal statement are stated below, followed by staff comments. Assignment of Error: The Planning Director’s decision not to require a TIA [Traffic Impact Analysis] was based solely on the applicant’s calculations for vehicle trips (see “Attachment A”: page 2 of the Director’s Decision) even though the applicant’s calculations only considered the proposed 106 unit apartment complex (see “Attachment B”: page 6 of the applicant’s 5/3/17 memorandum). The Director erred by failing to require applicant to consider all the “…development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division…” (per EC 9.8670(1)) in their calculations. In addition to calculation vehicle trips from the proposed 106 unit apartment complex, the Planning Director and applicant must also take into consideration Phase I of the development (the 40 single-family homes) as well as the likely development of the three undeveloped residential lots (42, 43, and 44) and the likely development of ‘Lot 46’. The appellant asserts that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should have been required in conjunction with the Site Review application. The appellant is correct that the Site Review did not consider trips generated by Phase I of the Pennington Acres Subdivision, or future trips that will be generated when Lots #42, #43, #44 and #46 are developed. This appeal is focused on the TIA applicability standard at EC 9.8670(1), which states: The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour as determined by using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation. In developments involving a land division, the peak hour trips shall be calculated based on the likely development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division. Regarding the first sentence of EC 9.8670(1), the applicant demonstrated that no more than 100 vehicle trips would be generated as a result of the proposed development; in this case the proposed development is the Alder Springs apartment project. Based on these findings, it is clear to staff that a TIA cannot be required based on the first sentence of EC 9.8670(1). The second sentence of EC 9.8670(1) begins with, “In developments involving a land division…” The appellant’s appeal statement fails to mention or consider this critical qualification. The Alder Springs development does not involve a land division; instead, the project involves construction of apartment units on established legal lots. Since no land division is proposed, the second sentence of EC 9.8670(1) does not apply to the subject Site Review application. Based 3 on these findings, the TIA applicability triggers are not met by the Alder Springs Site Review application. Another important consideration is the fact that the Site Review approval, which is the subject of this appeal, was granted under the City’s Needed Housing approval criteria. Compliance with the TIA requirements at EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 is not an approval criterion under the Needed Housing Site Review provisions at EC 9.8445. In other words, even if a TIA was required, that land use decision would be separate and distinct from the applicant’s Needed Housing Site Review approval. Staff Recommendation Based on the available information and consideration of the appeal, staff recommends that the Hearings Official affirm the Planning Director’s decision granting Site Review approval for the Alder Springs development. Staff finds no basis under which the relevant approval criteria at EC 9.8445 could lead to reversal or a condition of approval that would require the applicant to obtain TIA approval. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan (reduced in size) C. Written Appeal Statement D. Planning Director’s Decision (SR 17-2) The full record has already been provided to the Hearings Official separately, and is also available on the City’s website at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=SR-17-0002 A hardcopy of the complete record can also be made available for free inspection at the Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies may also be obtained at a reasonable cost. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at 541-682-5437 or via email at erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us 4  Vicinity Map Attachment A HANCOCK DR DAV ARMSTRONG AVE VE BRENTW OOD AVE ID A BUSHNE LL LN ALDERWO OD ST HEM LOCK ST MAY WO OD AVE LABONA DR LINW OOD ST BERWIN LN NO RTH WE FRE MONT AVE ST MAXWELL CONNECTOR MAX WEL L RD EXP MAXWELL RD RES AY ELM DR ELM DR SW ALDE RWO OD ST HOWARD AVE PENNINGTON CT Subject Property T HATTON AV E HINE S KEL LER ST BARRET T AV E JOS E P N PARK AVE NANTUCKET AVE ^ COMPTON ST KEL LY LN DE LA VE DOVE LN EUGENE AU HW VIRGIL AV E Y9 BENNET T LN KINTYRE ST ´ 9N RIK UGB HO CORNWALL AVE FF Subject Property Feet Caution: This map is based on imprecise 0 500 1000 source data, subject to change, Taxlots and for general reference only. September 2017 Attachment B  Attachment C RECEIV D AMM AUG302017 Planning A PEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION CITY OF EUGENE This appeal form applies to appeals of interpretation of this Land Use Code made according to EC 9. 1) 0 040( 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, Minor Modification of a Willamette Greenway Adjustment Review, Major Partition Tentative Code Interpretation Partition Final Hazardous Materials Review PUD Final Historic Property Alteration Site Review Historic Property Demolition Standards Review Historic Property Move Subdivision Tentative Modification of a Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Final Modification of a PUD Tentative Traffic Impact Analysis Modification of a PUD Final Vacation Improved Public R- WO- Modification of a Site Review Vacation Improved Public Easement Modification of a Standards Review Unimproved Public R- WO-with Re- dedication Modification of a Subdivision Plan Variance City File Name: Sri City File Number: Date of Planning Director Decision: S ' e~ k - 9 5Al' r' A,: A s' t) Date Appeal Filed: 2~ CD, 03 kTv\ This date must be within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Director's decision.) 4ttach 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 Planning staff at the Permit and Information center, 99 West 10th avenue, 682-for further information on the appeal process. 5377, 541- XA 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: www. orgeugeneplanning. www. gov/ eugene- o p lanning r. Planning & Development Updated: October, 2012 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541. 5377 682. * F 541. 5572 685. Page 1 of 2  Attachment C Acknowledgment the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that I ( we)have read the above appeal form, understand the requirements for filing an I ( we), 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) i Phone: 1 p 2- C' Company/Organization: Address: Ci Zip: City/ S tate/ lam' Signature: APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Name (print): Company/Organization Address: City/ Zip:S tate/ E- mail (if applicable): Phone: Fax: Signature: IF this appeal is being filed by the affected recognized neighborhood association, complete the following: Name of Association: ( I vlz ee: - www. 90V1P1Qr qerie- 0r. e u_ing Planning & Development Updated: October, 2012 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541. 5377 682. * F 541. 5572 685. Page 2 of 2  Attachment C 002. The This is an appeal of the Planning Director's Decision to conditionally approve SR 17- 8670 (1)in making the decision. The Director erred Director did not properly apply criteria of EC 9. by not requiring the applicant to accurately determine vehicle trips which, if done correctly, most likely would have required a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)for the proposed development. Rationale for appeal: Pennington Acres' meets the definition of Development" " EC 9. ( 0500).The proposed Alder Springs Apartments' is just one component of P̀ennington Acres' development. Pennington Acres' has, to date, been subdivided twice (per SF 15-004 and SF 17- 002). As a result of these land divisions; P̀ennington Acres' now consists of P̀hase I' 40 ( single- family homes built on 40 lots)and `Phase II' -which consists of the proposed 106 unit Alder Springs Apartments' complex as well as three undeveloped residential lots (42,43 and 44)and what the applicant refers to as `Lot 46' ( a 1.5 acre, currently undeveloped and commercially zoned contiguous lot). 8670 (1)specifically states a Traffic Impact Analysis is required if: " EC 9. The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour as determined by using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation. In developments involving a land division, the peak hour trips shall be calculated based on the likely development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division. " Conclusion and determination: The Planning Director's decision not to require a TIA was based solely on the applicant's page 2 of Director's Decision)even calculations for vehicle trips (see "Attachment A": though the applicant's calculations only considered the proposed 106 unit apartment complex (see "Attachment B": page 6 of applicant's 5/ 173/memorandum).The Director erred by failing to require applicant to consider all the development that will occur on all lots resultingfrom the land division ( per EC 9. in their calculations. 8670 (1)) In addition to calculating vehicle trips from the proposed 106 unit apartment complex, the Planning Director and applicant must also take into consideration Phase I of the development (the 40 single-family homes) as well as the likely development of the three undeveloped residential lots (42,43, and 44)and the likely development of L̀ot 46'. 002 should be reversed and the applicant instructed to The conditional approval of SR 17- recalculate vehicle trips. If the resulting calculation exceeds the 100 vehicle trips threshold, the applicant must be required to conduct a TIA prior to resubmitting. Should a TIA be required; given the close proximity of P̀ennington Acres' development to two schools (Howard Elementary and Kelly Middle School) the Planning Director should require the TIA to be conducted during the school year. Appeal respectfully submitted on 8/ 2017 within the time-frame allowed by notice)with 30/( sponsorship/support of the River Road Community Organization. Steve Norris, 580 Rosewood Ave, Eugene  i e/ v\ A I , 5 r C Attachment North Park Avenue is an unprotected wetland and riparian area. Most of this area is also left undeveloped. The applicant is requesting Site Review approval under the Needed Housing criteria provided by Eugene Code (EC)section 9. 8445, and Adjustment Review approval under the criteria at EC 9. 8030. The relevant Type 11 land use application procedures are primarily addressed at EC 9. 7200 through EC 9. 7230. Referrals/Public Notice Public notice of the subject application(s) was mailed on July 13, 2017, and posted consistent with the requirements of EC 9. 7210. The Planning Division received emails from twelve neighbors in response to the public notice. All correspondence is available in the file for review and is incorporated herein by reference. The following concerns and issues were raised: Increased vehicular traffic, congestion and speeding on neighboring streets which are too narrow and not properly signed; Increased vehicular traffic impacts on nearby schools and safety for pedestrians and children; Were traffic counts conducted and is there a need for a traffic light at North Park Avenue and Maxwell Road; Need to mitigate neighborhood traffic issues with additional street access to Maxwell Road and Maxwell Connector; Need for Traffic Impact Analysis; Not enough parking, cars will park on the adjoining neighborhood streets; Tree preservation; Impacts from noise and dust during construction; Will apartments be affordable housing/low income; Increased trash, litter and vehicle exhaust with more apartments. Negative effect on existing home prices; Was told the area would be preserved/protected, Was told the area would be developed with a few single-family homes; Would rather see single- family, town homes or senior living than apartments; Height of buildings, proximity of apartments to existing homes and negative impact on privacy; Would rather see less units Regarding the issue of increased traffic on neighboring streets, it is noted that Larry Lane was designed to serve this undeveloped portion of Pennington Acres, identified as Phase 2 of the original Pennington Acres subdivision. Improvements to North Park Avenue were also constructed with the original subdivision. The expected number of vehicles during any peak hour will be below the 100 trip threshold that would trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Lacking a TIA, there is nothing further in the approval criteria for this application that would alder Springs Apartments (SR 17-2 and ARS 17-1) August 2017 2  1 11yN' I" 4 1 l-~'~ L' - pvrclk ( TOC-) - Attachment C L- According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers 7h̀ Edition, a low rise apartment building with an average number of occupied dwelling units of 257 generates a standard deviation of 0. 77 trips per occupied dwelling unit on peak weekday hour between 4p.m.and 6p.m. Accordingly, the proposed development of 106 units, fully occupied, would generate approximately 82 peak hour trips. As the proposed site review does not generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour, a Traffic Impact Analysis Review is not required. 10. Street and Public Access Way: On plans indicate radii of all street curves. Staff note: The extension of Larry Lane as a public street does not appear to serve a public purpose. Easements will be needed for access to the public storm system but a private street might be more appropriate. Show radii information for private street. The applicant has revised the plan accordingly and the extension of Larry Lane is as a private street. The radii information for the private street is indicated on the Paving Details (Sheet C- 1). 2 . Alder Springs Apartments - 1- 1 _ 1 6 Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D