Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Lane County Public Service Building – Harris Hall www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 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, JANUARY 10, 2018 (5:30 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In The Center (CU 16-6) Request: Conditional use permit approval for the establishment of a neighborhood center in an existing building. Location: 95 N. Washington Street (Assessor’s Map/ Tax Lot(s): 17-03-30-31/ 9600, 9700) Applicant: Jerilyn Spring, In The Center Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5282 E-mail: althea.c.sullivan@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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Application File Name (Number): In The Center (CU 16-6) Applicant’s Request: Conditional use permit approval for the establishment of a neighborhood center in an existing building. Applicant/Owner: Jerilyn Spring, In The Center Applicant’s Representative(s): Will Dixon, Willard C. Dixon Architect, LLC Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, (541) 682-5282 Subject Property Location: Address: 95 N. Washington Street Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-03-30-31/9600 & 9700 Existing Zoning: R-2 Medium-Density Residential with /SR Site Review and /20 unit per acre overlays. Relevant Dates: Application submitted December 19, 2016; application deemed complete at applicant’s request on June 16, 2017, and extension of 120 days granted; supplemental materials submitted on November 13, 2017; public hearing scheduled for January 10, 2018. ________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose of Staff Report Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary information and recommendations. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, the quasi- In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 1 Page 1 judicial hearing procedures for this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. Background/ Current Request The subject site is located at southwest corner of the intersection of N. Washington Street and Cheshire Street. It has an existing building and parking area, both of which appear to be in a state of disrepair based on photographs provided by the applicant. The applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for a use it categorizes as a neighborhood center. The applicant explains that the structure on the property was constructed in 1974, and originally housed a church. It is also speculated that once the church left the building, it was not economically viable to convert the building to housing, and the building was left vacant. It is stated that the current owner purchased the building with the intent of remedying a community eyesore, and creating a space to house indoor activities which they state will compliment surrounding outdoor recreation opportunities. The applicant met with staff on September 9, 2015 to discuss the proposal, in compliance with EC 9.7005 Pre-application Conference. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 8, 2017, in compliance with EC 9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings. Application Referrals and Public Hearing Notice Public notice of the subject application was mailed on December 8, 2017. Notice of the application was also posted consistent with the requirements of EC 9.7315 Public Hearing Notice. The Planning Division has received one email from Jeff Harrison, which is further evaluated in the context of the approval criteria below. The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in the application file for reference, and addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and standards in the following evaluation. Evaluation of Conditional Use Permit In accordance with EC 9.7330, the Hearings Official is required to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type III land use application. The decision must be based on, and be accompanied by, findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. It must also state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explain the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. To assist the Hearings Official in rendering a decision on the application, staff presents the following conditional use permit approval criteria (shown below in bold typeface), with findings related to each, based on the evidence available as of the date of this staff report. Staff also provides a recommendation to the Hearings Official following the staff evaluation, below. In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 2 Page 2  EC 9.8090(1): The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. The Metro Plan designates the subject property for Medium Density Residential use. In this case, the broad category of Medium Density Residential is further refined by the specific zoning of the site which is R-2 Medium-Density Residential with a /SR Site Review overlay and /20 unit per acre density cap. The applicant’s proposed use is allowed in the R-2 Medium-Density Residential zone, subject to an approved conditional use permit (CUP) see Eugene Code (EC) Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements. The applicant states that its proposed use is permitted, and can be considered auxiliary to residential uses. The applicant also notes that the Metro Plan provides the following under the description of residential designations: Using gross acres, approximately 32 percent of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and churches not actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram (see Page II-G-4). The applicant also lists several policies from the Metro Plan and provides reasons why its proposed use is consistent with the plan policies. The plan policies provided by the applicant support its project, however, none of them appear to be mandatory approval criteria. As no policies appear to be mandatory approval criteria, the fact that the Metro Plan allows for auxiliary uses in residentially designated property, and the designation is further implemented by the zoning, which in this case allows a neighborhood center is sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the plan. The Whiteaker Plan is the applicable refinement plan for the subject property. The applicant lists several policies from the plan, and provides statements about how its proposal is consistent with the policies. In this case, Policy 2 (see page 32) from the plan appears to be applicable to the applicant’s request and is provided below: Policy 2: Apply Site Review… Also apply Site Review to all properties zoned MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use and to all properties zoned R-2/20 or any other residential zoning district that allows an equal or higher residential density, excluding property in a historic district. For parcels zoned with the site review subdistrict as part of the Whiteaker Plan implementation rezonings, the triggering threshold for when to apply site review shall be as follows: Site review is required for new development, except for the expansion or alteration of single-family structures in residential use. New development is defined as the development of a new structure excluding single-family structures, or an additional to an existing structure that expands the building footprint. In this case, the applicant’s request is for a change in the use of a site, not the expansion of a building. Based on this finding, as well as the codified applicability statements for site review at EC In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 3 Page 3 9.8430 which are not met in this instance, the applicant need not apply for a site review approval to proceed with its proposal. The applicant also lists other policies and provides additional arguments in support of its request. Again, none of the listed policies appear to be mandatory approval criteria and if anything, provide support for the applicant’s request. Based on these findings, EC 9.8090(1) is met. EC 9.8090(2): The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following factors: (a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and density of use being proposed. The applicant is proposing to repair an existing structure, and states that it will not increase the building footprint of the structure. As the applicant will use an existing building, the question of suitability of the existing structure for the use is at hand. As the structure originally housed a church, which allowed a gathering of people, the neighborhood center providing a gathering place for people is a suitable use for the existing structure. (b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare and odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through other design techniques, such as screening and increased setbacks. Noise: The applicant states that minimal noise will be generated by In The Center, and music will generally be secondary to a main activity. Additionally, the applicant notes operational hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, with 10:00 p.m. being the scheduled conclusion of activities on all days. The applicant also states that it will operate in compliance with the City of Eugene noise ordinance. Glare: The applicant states that a new exterior roof mounted light will be directed downward towards the parking area, and all exterior lighting will be shielded to prevent direct glare into neighboring properties. The applicant’s site plan sheet A1 shows two items, one labeled “(E) Parking Lighting” and the other labeled “(E) Parking Lighting (Mounted to Roof)”. It appears that the item labeled “(E) Parking Lighting” already exists as shown by the applicant’s photos of the existing building. While not a new feature, the applicant’s statement that all exterior lighting will be shielded to prevent glare indicates an intent to replace existing lighting features, or shield them to reduce glare. To ensure that the applicant provides light fixtures that reduce, or minimize glare the following condition is provided:  The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Outdoor lighting fixtures shall comply with the standards at EC 9.6725 Outdoor Lighting Standards.” In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 4 Page 4 Odors: The applicant notes a kitchen as the only possible source of odors for In The Center, and clarifies that it will be used to prepare refreshments for other activities. The applicant also states that some dietary classes or food storage classes may also be taught in the kitchen. While the applicant has identified uses of the kitchen, and possible odor sources, it has not identified an area on its plans for garbage or recycling. In the event garbage and recycling is stored outside of the building, it will be required to comply with current standards for facilities listed at EC 9.6740 Recycling and Garbage Screening. To ensure that this occurs, the following condition is provided:  The applicant shall submit revised site plans that identify the location of recycling and garbage facilities. In the event the facilities are located outside of the building, they shall comply with EC 9.6740 Recycling and Garbage Screening. Regarding parking lots, the applicant’s site plans show a parking area with a total of 28 parking spaces. The applicant provides photographs that demonstrate that the parking area is currently paved, even though organic matter has gathered on the surface, and states that resurfacing and patchwork will occur. The applicant also indicates that screening for the parking lot will consist of fences located on the eastern and southern property boundaries, as there is insufficient space for landscaping. The letter received from Jeff Harrison expresses a concern about fencing along the eastern edge of the subject site. The concerns expressed by Harrison are related to the current state of the fencing, and note that boards have been removed and used for firewood by people squatting on the site. Overall, the applicant’s parking area has a sufficient number of spaces to ensure parking occurs on the site, and resurfacing and new striping will make it clear to users of the site where to park. While landscaping for the parking area is not required by codified parking area landscaping standards due to the previous establishment of the parking area (see EC 9.6420(3)), the concern of the adequacy of the existing fence is valid. Based on a photograph provided by the applicant (see North Elevation View at Cheshire St.), and the testimony provided by Harrison, it is appropriate to provide a condition of approval to ensure that fencing is repaired. This requirement for the repair of fencing is necessary to ensure that glare from headlights of vehicles does not negatively impact the residential properties located to the south and east of the subject site. The condition about the fence is as follows:  The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Fencing along the southern and eastern edges of the parking area shall be 6 feet in height and fully screen adjacent properties.” Based on the available evidence, conditions, and findings above the applicant’s proposal will comply with this criterion. In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 5 Page 5  (c) If the proposal involves a residential use, the project is designed, sited and/or adequately buffered to minimize off-site impacts which could adversely affect the future residents of the subject property. The applicant does not propose a residential use, therefore, the above subsection does not apply to this proposal. Based on these findings, conditions, and available information EC 9.8090(2) is met. EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. The applicant states that its proposed use will provide a unique amenity to those living and working in the vicinity. The applicant highlights the fact that classes, retreats, or celebrations held in the building will be in a location that neighbors can walk to. Additionally, the renovation of the building will reduce crime occurring due to vacancy of the structure. The subject site is located at the northern edge of an existing residential area. To the north of the site, a City park and community garden exist, and even further is the Willamette River. Two blocks to the south is a skate park, and a bit further buildings that house a variety of businesses are located. As far as suitability of the location for a neighborhood center goes, there appears to be a residential support population for the center, and possibly, patrons from local businesses that are part of the neighborhood during the work day. By providing programming in the existing building, the applicant’s proposal will provide a convenient civic environment, functional living environment, and possibly enhance the surrounding working environment. Additionally, the reuse of a building that has been sitting vacant will improve the aesthetics of the site. Based on these findings, EC 9.8090(3) is met. EC 9.8090(4): The proposal demonstrates adequate and safe circulation exists for the following: (a) Vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response. Vehicular access is provided to the site from existing access connections, one to N. Washington Street and one to Cheshire Street. The access connections comply with standards for such connections, as confirmed by this recommendation at EC 9.8090(8)(c). The access connections will allow vehicles, other users, and emergency responders to enter the site from either street. Based on the available evidence, the proposal complies with this criterion. (b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on 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 In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 6 Page 6  reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. The applicant states that it will provide required long term bicycle parking inside of the building, and that other spaces will be provided near the driveway entrance on Washington Street. The applicant also states that pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit user access to the site will be easy. The applicant’s site plans are inconsistent as to the exact number of spaces being proposed. A review of EC Table 9.6105(5) Minimum Required Parking Spaces shows that neighborhood centers are not specifically listed by the table. However, at EC 9.6105 Bicycle Parking Standards subsection 2(a), the following statement is made: “A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at each development site, unless no spaces are required by Table 9.6105(5)”. As Table 9.6105(5) does not provide any guidance with the required number of spaces for neighborhood centers, it can be determined that 4 spaces are required. More specifically, the heading for the table indicates that a “minimum of 4 spaces is required unless -0- is indicated.” Since neighborhood centers are not listed in the table with a “-0-” indicated for that use, 4 spaces are required. As the applicant’s calculations and site plan are inconsistent and do not provide clarity on the proposed location of spaces, the following condition is provided to ensure compliance with bicycle parking requirements:  The applicant shall submit revised site plans that provide a minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces which comply with the standards at EC 9.6105 Bicycle Parking Standards. As far as circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, a mixed use path is located across N. Washington Street from the site. This path provides a connection in the direction of downtown, where a bus stop is two blocks away, as well as to the north where the path system runs along the Willamette River and provides access through Eugene, and even to Springfield. The existing path system provides adequate and safe circulation for users to access nearby amenities, and there is no further need for additional paths, or other facilities. Based on these findings and condition, EC 9.8090(4) is met. EC 9.8090(5): The proposal is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment by addressing the following: (a) Protection of Natural Features. 1. For areas not included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the preservation of significant natural features to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, including: a. Significant on-site vegetation, including rare plants (those that are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law), and native plant communities. b. All documented habitat for all rare animal species (those that are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law). c. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and rock outcrops. d. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and riparian areas. In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 7 Page 7  e. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as “Natural Resource” and areas identified in any city-adopted natural resource inventory. 2. For areas included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the preservation of natural features shall be consistent with the acknowledged level of preservation provided for the area. The subject property is not part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Additionally the applicant indicates that significant on-site vegetation will not be removed, there are no documented habitat areas for rare animal species, no prominent topographic features, no wetlands, and no natural resource areas as designated by the Metro Plan. (b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having the following characteristics given the highest priority for preservation: 1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zone or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria; 2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated trees subject to windthrow; 3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade expansive areas of pavement; 4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; 5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas; 6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; 7. Trees with significant habitat value; 8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets; 9. Trees located along a water feature; 10. Heritage trees. The applicant provides photographs of the site one of which (West Elevation at Washington St.), shows three trees located near the existing building. The applicant’s site plans show bicycle parking being located in this area, yet the applicant states in its written narrative that no trees will be removed. Between the written statement, site plan, and photographs there is a mismatch in the information provided by the applicant. This being said, the Eugene Code defines “significant tree” as having a diameter at breast height of at least 8 inches, and in this case it is unclear whether the three trees shown meet this definition (see EC 9.0500). Even if the trees met the definition, the above criterion seeks to preserve trees that provide an ecological function, or a screening function between incompatible uses. In this case, the trees sit between the applicant’s building and the adjacent street to the west, and further to the west is a sloped hill that leads up to I-105. As the trees are relatively small, are not in a clustered pattern, or appear to provide an ecological benefit; and the trees do not provide a screening function for an adjacent property that views the applicant’s site, the trees are not good candidates for preservation and can be removed at the applicant’s discretion. In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 8 Page 8  (c) Restoration or Replacement. 1. For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the proposal mitigates, to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, the loss of significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above, through the restoration or replacement of natural features such as: a. Planting of replacement trees within common areas; or b. Re-vegetation of slopes, ridgelines, and stream corridors; or c. Restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, native plant habitat, wetland areas, and riparian vegetation. To the extent applicable, restoration or replacement shall be in compliance with the planting and replacement standards of EC 6.320. 2. For areas included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, any loss of significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above shall be consistent with the acknowledged level of protection for the features. As established above, there are no significant natural features located on the applicant’s site, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. (d) Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305. The proposal does not include the removal of existing street trees, therefore this criterion is not applicable. Based on these findings, EC 9.8090(5) is met. EC 9.8090(6): The proposal provides adequate public facilities and services including, but not limited to utilities, streets, and other infrastructure. Public Works confirms that although no public improvements are proposed, the existing street system and public utilities can adequately serve the proposed development. Findings that demonstrate how this conclusion was reached are available in the Public Works referral comments, located in the application file for reference. Based on these findings, EC 9.8090(6) is met. EC 9.8090(7): The proposal does not create any significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. The applicant states that its proposal will address an existing public health and safety issue by converting an abandoned building to a neighborhood center. The applicant also states that signage and parking lot improvements will increase visibility of the site for emergency services in the event of an emergency. At this time, the applicant has not provided details for its proposed signs to demonstrate compliance with Sign Standards starting at EC 9.6600. To ensure that any signs provided by the applicant comply with the standards for signs, the following condition is provided: In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 9 Page 9   The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Signs shall comply with the Sign Standards starting at EC 9.6600.” Public Works referral comments, which are available in the application file for reference, confirm that the subject property is not located within a regulatory Special Flood Hazard Area. Additionally, it is noted that the site is level which means that soil erosion or slope failure are unlikely public risks. As an informational item, an erosion permit may be needed at the time of development, which will further ensure that no risks to public health or safety occur. Based on these findings and condition, EC 9.8090(7) is met. EC 9.8090(8): The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 regarding lot dimensions, solar standards, and density requirements for the subject zone; The applicant’s proposal does not create a new lot that would be subject to review under lot dimension, or solar standards. With regards to density, the proposed use is for a neighborhood center, for which density is not applicable as established in this decision at EC 9.8090(8)(f), which is incorporated herein by reference. Based on these findings, EC 9.8090(8)(a) is met. (b) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards EC 9.6500 Easements authorizes the City to require dedication of easements for public utilities and access under certain circumstances. The applicant does not propose nor has Public Works identified the need for additional public easements to address stormwater or wastewater needs for present or future development of the area. EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards requires that all public improvements be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted plans, policies, procedures and standards specified in EC Chapter 7. No public improvements are proposed or required of this development; however, all developments are required to make and be served by the infrastructure improvements described below. EC 9.6505(1) Water Supply: EWEB referral comments confirm that water service already serves the site. The referral comments are included as an attachment to this recommendation. EC 9.6505(2) Sewage: Public Works confirms that the site is currently served by a connection to a 12-inch public wastewater line located in the Cheshire Avenue right-of-way. EC 9.6505(3) and (4) Streets, Alleys, and Sidewalks: The subject site has frontage on N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and unimproved N. Lawrence Alley. Public Works referral comments note that the existing streets and alley that surround the development site have adequate right-of-way width but are not fully built. The Eugene Code requires that streets be improved with paving, In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 10 Page 10 drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and street lights. To ensure that improvements are provided in a logical manner, rather than just for the subject site at this time, Public Works staff recommend that an Irrevocable Petition for improvements be required as a condition of approval which is provided below:  The applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for improvements of N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and the public alley (N. Lawrence Alley) adjacent to the site. EC 9.6505(5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways: no bicycle paths or access ways are proposed by the applicant. As the site is located in a developed area that is already surrounded by bicycle paths and accessways, no additional dedication or construction is required. (c) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required The applicant indicates that it will continue to utilize existing access connections to the subject site. As the existing connections comply with the standards for access in EC Chapter 7, the applicant’s proposal is acceptable according to referral comments from Public Works staff (also see EC 7.420(1) and EC 7.420(3)). (d) EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance; and The site is currently developed, and is served by a catchment system located in the northwest corner of the site that discharges to the public system in Washington Street. The applicant does not propose any modification to the existing system. As no changes will be made to the existing drainage pattern or stormwater conveyance system, the applicant complies with this criterion. Public Works referral comments note as an informational item that should new or replaced impervious surfaces exceed 1,000 square feet, the standards at EC 9.6792(3)(d)-(g) will be evaluated through the development permit review process. (e) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways Referral comments from Public Works confirm that the proposal meets all applicable standards for streets, alleys and other public ways. An evaluation of each applicable street standard is provided in the referral comments, which are available in the application file for reference. (f) Where the proposal is to establish non-residential uses subject to residential density requirements on development sites in the residential zone category… The applicant states that the site has been in non-residential use for over forty years, and that the adaptive re-use of the building for a neighborhood center does not trigger the requirement for compliance with density standards. While certainly a reasonable argument, another reason that the applicant need not comply with density is as follows. EC Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements lists Community or Neighborhood Center under the Education, Cultural, Religious, Social and Fraternal heading. Also In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 11 Page 11 listed under this heading is a Club and Lodge of State or National Organization, which, unlike a Community or Neighborhood Center, is followed by a statement that clarifies that density requirements must be met. Due to the construction of the code and explicit identification of which uses must meet residential density requirements, it is clear that a Community or Neighborhood Center is not subject to this requirement. Based on these findings, the above criterion is not applicable. Based on the findings and conditions above, EC 9.8090(8) is met. EC 9.8090(9): The proposal complies with the Traffic Impact Analysis Review provisions of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable. The applicant provides a technical memorandum prepared by Kelly E. Sandow, P.E. of Sandow Engineering that demonstrates that In The Center will not generate more than 100 trips in the peak hour. The memorandum states that the most intensive use of the site would be a soft movement class like yoga, which could have up to 60 participants, two instructors, and one staff person. Based on this assumed use, 63 peak hours trips could result, which is still below the 100 peak hour trips that would trigger the need for a traffic impact analysis review application. Based on this finding, and the materials prepared by Kelly. E. Sandow to which Public Work staff concur, this criterion is not applicable. Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the CUP with the conditions listed below: 1. The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Outdoor lighting fixtures shall comply with the standards at EC 9.6725 Outdoor Lighting Standards.” 2. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that identify the location of recycling and garbage facilities. In the event the facilities are located outside of the building, they shall comply with EC 9.6740 Recycling and Garbage Screening. 3. The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Fencing along the southern and eastern edges of the parking area shall be 6 feet in height and fully screen adjacent properties.” 4. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that provide a minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces which comply with the standards at EC 9.6105 Bicycle Parking Standards. 5. The applicant shall provide the following note on its final site plans, “Signs shall comply with the Sign Standards starting at EC 9.6600.” 6. The applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for improvements of N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and the public alley (N. Lawrence Alley) adjacent to the site. Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following close of the public record, the Eugene Hearings Official shall approve, approve with In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 12 Page 12 conditions, or deny this Type III application. The decision shall be based upon and be accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. Attachments The applicant’s full-size site plans, and the entire application file, are available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing. These materials will also be made available for review at the public hearing. Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Applicant’s Site Plan (reduced) Attachment C: Informational Items Attachment D: EWEB Referral Comments For More Information Please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5282; or by e-mail, at: althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us In The Center (CU 16-6) January 2018 13 Page 13  Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachment A Subject Site FLORAL AVE EUGENE N WASHINGTON ST N LAWRENCE ST CHESHIRE AVE EB I105 CLARK ST ´ Legend Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, Subject Site and for general reference only. Ft 0 50 100 200 1/3/18 Page 14  Page 15 Conditional Use Permit TYPE III APPLICATION Rose IN THE CENTER Attachment B Garden 4J School Kiwanis City File #CU 16-06 ~ Project Site: TaxMap # 17 03 30 31 Lot #s 09600, 09700 ~ 95 N Washington St., Eugene, OR 97401 Farm Park CHESHIRE Hydrant WEB: wcd@willardcdixon.com Note: Entire Property is CLARK Skinners Eugene, OR 97402-5103 Butte Park OUTSIDE 500-yr. FLOOD PLAIN PHONE: 541.689.3548 MOBILE: 541.868.5960 1ST AVE 753 W 5th Avenue CL A VICINITY MAP S c a l e : N.T.S. WILLARD C. 33'-0" R.O.W. PROJECT TEAM PROPERTY OWNER ARCHITECTURE 17'-0" In The Center Will Dixon, AIA 5'-0" (E) Access (E) Landscaping Typ. 95 N Washington Willard C. Dixon Width to Remain, Typ. Eugene, OR 97402 Architect, LLC 416' AMSL 418' AMSL 541-914-7872 753 W 5th Ave contact: Jerilyn Spring Eugene, OR 97402-5103 DIXON Architect, AIA jerispring@comcast.net 541-689-3548 - office CL wcd@willardcdixon.com 33'-0" R.O.W. TRAFFIC ENGINEER LAND USAGE Kelly Sandow, PE Teresa Bishow, AICP (6) FULL Sandow Engineering, LLC Bishow Consulting SIZE 160 Madison St, Ste A PO Box 50721 25'-0" 8'-0" Eugene, OR 97402 Eugene, OR 97405 18'-0" 541-513-3376 - office 541-514-1029 Access Drive kellysandow teresa DATE: 12/ 19/ 2016 REV: 09/ 18/ 2017 @sandowengineering.com @bishowconsulting.com PROJECT SUMMARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DES: 22'-0" BICYCLE ANALYSIS (1) ADA VAN Typ. WCD Dance/Gym Studio w/ ACCESS 1 400 @ 1,857 sf = 4.64 ZONE: R-2/SR/20 Office 1 3000 @ 117 sf = 0.04 SITE AREA: Min. R28'-0" TOTAL = 4.68 = 5; LOT# 9600 Turning Radius NEIGHBORHOOD: Whiteaker EXISTING USE: Former Church 95 N Washington St, Eugene, OR 97401 25% Long = 2 LOT# 9700 VICINITY MAP / (P) SITE PLAN / NOTES 75% Short = 4 NOTE: No Shelter PROPOSED USE: Neighborhood Center Required per EC Table 9.6105(4)(c) 22'-0" 8'-0" 22'-0" (3) FULL SIZE (E/P) Building Footprint: PARKING TOTAL 19'-0" 23.3% of Site FULL SIZE = 9 COMPACT = 18 (E) Access 23'-0" ADA VAN = 1 Width Access Drive 14.7% of Site DRF: TMS 28 62.0% of Site 8'-0" (18) COMPACT 15'-0" 15.6% of Site 61.1% of Site WILLARD C. DIXON 418' AMSL 420' AMSL Architect, LLC In The Center will operate as a Neighborhood Center providing cultural, social, exercise, and educational activities and classes to small groups responsive to local A1 neighborhood needs. In the Center will provide indoor activities to compliment the extensive outdoor B (P) SITE PLAN recreational opportunities available in nearby City parks. S c a l e : 1" = 20' - 0" when printed on 11x17 (E) = Existing (P) = Proposed  Attachment C PUBLIC WORKS REFERRAL RESPONSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - GENERAL CRITERIA Date: December 22, 2017 To: Althea Sullivan, Planning Division From: Donna Stark, Public Works Engineering Subject: CU 16-06 The Center Disclaimer: The following referral comments from Public Works staff reflect a preliminary evaluation of compliance with applicable approval standards and criteria. These referral comments include draft findings and recommended conditions of approval, as well as related informational items, relevant to surveying, engineering, transportation, and maintenance issues identified by Public Works staff in the context of the applicable standards and criteria. These referral comments are intended for review by Planning staff, for incorporation into the City’s written decision on the subject application, however, they do not represent a final determination of compliance with the applicable approval standards and criteria. It is acknowledged these referral comments are subject to revision upon further coordination with other affected City departments and utility providers. Summary: Public Works staff recommends conditional approval of the conditional use application based on the following evaluation of the criteria specific to our area of expertise. 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - General (4) The proposal demonstrates adequate and safe circulation exists for the following: (a) Vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response. The proposal will not impact existing circulation patterns, and revisions to existing access connections are neither proposed nor required per the findings provided at EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. Evaluation of access and on-site circulation for emergency response will be further evaluated by the Fire Marshal’s Office. Based on these findings, this criterion is met. (b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on 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. Per planning review. (5) The proposal is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment by addressing the following: CU 16-06 The Center Page 1 of 7 Page 16  Attachment C (d) Street Trees: If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305 of this code. The applicant does not propose the removal of street trees. As such, this criterion is not applicable. (6) The proposal provides adequate public facilities and services including, but not limited to utilities, streets, and other infrastructure. Public Works staff confirms that although no public improvements are proposed, the existing street system and public utilities can adequately serve the proposed development per the findings provided at EC 9.8090(8)(b), (8)(d) and (8)(e). (7) The proposal does not create any significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. The subject property is not located within a regulatory Special Flood Hazard Area, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 41039C-1136-F, dated June 2, 1999. Given to the level nature of the area of development, soil erosion and slope failure are unlikely. As an information item, staff notes that the need for an erosion permit will be evaluated at the time a development permit is submitted. Given the available information, and based on the findings as set forth above, it is concluded that the proposed development will comply with the applicable criterion. PW staff defer to the Fire Marshal’s office for potential impediments to emergency response (8) The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to: (b) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards 9.6500 Easements This section authorizes the City to require dedication of easements for public utilities and access under certain circumstances. The applicant does not propose nor has Public Works staff identified the need for additional public easements to address stormwater or wastewater needs for present or future development of the area. In the event, a PUE is required by a referral agency other than Public Works, the following informational note is pertinent. Pursuant to EC 9.6500(3), the final site plan shall note the following restriction: No building, structure, tree, or other obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a public utility easement. Based on these findings, the proposal complies with EC 9.6500. 9.6505 Improvements – Specifications This section requires that all public improvements be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted plans, policies, procedures and standards specified in EC Chapter 7. No public CU 16-06 The Center Page 2 of 7 Page 17  Attachment C improvements are proposed with this development; however, all developments are required to make and be served by the infrastructure improvements described below. 1) Water Supply Per EWEB referral 2) Sewage All developments are to be served by wastewater sewage systems of the city, in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of this code. There is a 12” diameter public wastewater line within Cheshire Avenue right-of-way to which existing development is connected. The development complies with this standard. 3) Streets and Alleys and 4) Sidewalks EC 9.6505(3)(a) does not apply because there are no streets within the development. Unless adjacent streets and alleys are already improved to City standards, EC 9.6505(3)(b) requires the developer to pave streets and alleys adjacent to the development site to the width specified in EC 9.6870 Street Width and to construct related street improvements: drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and street lights. The site is adjacent to N. Washington Street to the west, Cheshire Avenue to the north, and unimproved alley right-of-way (N. Lawrence Alley) to the east. Per the findings at EC 9.6870 Street Width, incorporated herein by reference, the adjacent rights-of-way are not improved to city standards. In lieu of immediate completion of the outstanding improvements, the following condition is warranted:  The applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for improvements of N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and the public alley (N. Lawrence Alley) adjacent to the site. Irrevocable petitions enable the City to initiate a local improvement process and obligate the property owners to pay their proportional share of the street construction costs in the future. The City could construct the improvements when the majority of benefiting property owners agrees to pay for the improvements. 5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways No bicycle paths or public access ways are required per the findings at EC 9.6835, which are incorporated by reference. (c) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required (1) Except as otherwise provided in this land use code, no building or structure shall be erected or altered except on a lot fronting or abutting on a public street or having access CU 16-06 The Center Page 3 of 7 Page 18  Attachment C to a public street over a private street or easement of record approved in accordance with provisions contained in this land use code. The site has frontage on Cheshire Avenue and North Washington Street. This standard is met. (2) Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections – Location. If a development will increase the development site’s peak hour trip generation by less than 50% and will generate less than 20 additional peak hour trips, the development site’s existing access connections are exempt from this standard. The applicant proposes to use existing access connections to Cheshire Avenue and North Washington Street, which are consistent with applicable standards in EC 7.420(1) and (3) for access to local streets. This criterion is met. (d) EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797 Stormwater Management regarding stormwater destination, pollution reduction, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control easements, and operation and maintenance. With respect to EC 9.6791 Flood Control, in order to protect lives and properties from flood and drainage hazards, stormwater runoff from development sites, as calculated utilizing the Rational Method and considering all developments having received tentative or final plan approval, shall be discharged into existing stormwater flood control facilities that have the capacity to handle the stormwater runoff; or, be retained or detained onsite; or discharged into a new stormwater flood control facility constructed by the applicant. Proposed and required stormwater flood control facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with code requirements. The site is currently served by a public storm system at the northwest corner of the site, which discharges to the 12” public system in Washington Street, and will continue to utilize this connection. Flood control standards are met. Regarding EC 9.6792 Stormwater Quality, the application does not propose or require the construction of a public street, private street, or shared driveway. As an informational item, should new or replaced impervious surfaces exceed 1,000 square feet, the standards of EC 9.6792(3)(d)-(g) will be evaluated through the development permit review process. Because the proposed development is at an elevation less than 500 feet; does not drain to a Headwaters facility; does not generate high concentrations of oil and grease as described in EC 9.6794; does not include the addition of new facilities requiring source controls as described in EC 9.6795; and does not trigger the need for the dedication of stormwater easements, EC 9.6793, EC 9.6794, EC 9.6795, and EC 9.6796 do not apply. The standards of EC 9.6797 will not be triggered unless additional stormwater facilities are required as discussed in the findings at EC 9.6792 and incorporated herein by reference. With the findings and any future permit requirements noted above, staff finds that the stormwater criterion will be met. CU 16-06 The Center Page 4 of 7 Page 19  Attachment C (e)EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6870 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways As no streets are proposed or required, there is no requirement for the dedication of right of way. EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public Ways Eugene Code 9.8215(1)(b) requires that the applicant comply with the street, alley and other public way standards set forth in EC 9.6800 through 9.6875. Pursuant to EC 9.6805, [a]s a condition of any development, the city may require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. The public ways for streets to be dedicated to the public by the applicant shall conform to the adopted right-of-way map and EC Table 9.6870. As discussed in EC 9.6870 Street Width, which is incorporated by reference, the existing width of rights-of-way for N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and the adjacent alley meet or exceed minimum required widths established at EC 9.6870 and there is no need for additional right-of- way to complete paving improvements. Therefore, no additional right-of-way dedication is required as a condition of this development. EC 9.6810 Block Length The block length requirements are not applicable in this instance because no new streets are proposed or required. EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets These standards require developments to include street extensions to complete the existing street network and to serve undeveloped or partially developed adjacent lands. The street infrastructure surrounding the subject property is fully developed with a complete network of public streets, alleys and adequate right-of-way for sidewalks, meeting the basic requirements of street connectivity. There are no undeveloped or partially developed properties to which additional streets must be extended, nor are any additional street connections or extensions of any kind required. Additionally, because existing development on adjacent properties precludes a street connection, the proposed development qualifies for an exception to the street connectivity standards per EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2)(b). Based on these findings, an exception from these standards is warranted pursuant to EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2). EC 9.6820Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds These standards do not apply because no new cul-de-sacs or streets are proposed or required. EC 9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Alleys This standard does not apply because no new intersections are proposed. CU 16-06 The Center Page 5 of 7 Page 20  Attachment C 9.6835 Public Accessways This standard does not apply as there are no existing or potential accessways on adjacent sites that dictate the dedication or construction of a public access way. EC 9.6840 Reserve Strips This standard does not apply because no new streets are proposed or required. EC 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements This standard does not apply because street improvements are not proposed or required. EC 9.6850 Street Classification Map This standard does not apply because no new streets are proposed or required. EC 9.6855 Street Names This standard does not apply because no new streets are proposed or required. EC 9.6860 Street Right-of-Way Map No amendments to the Street Right-of-Way map are proposed or required. EC 9.6870 Street Width Pursuant to EC 9.6870, when a street segment right-of-way width is not designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map, the required street width shall be the minimum width shown for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths”, although a greater width can be required based on adopted plans and policies, adopted ‘Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways’ or other factors which in the judgment of the planning and public works director necessitate a greater street width. N. Washington Street and Cheshire Avenue are not identified on the adopted Street Classification Map or the adopted Right-of-Way Map (Fig. 60-61 of the Arterial and Collector Street Plan (ACSP)), and function as a low volume residential streets. Per EC Table 9.6870, low volume local streets are required to have between 45 and 55 feet of right-of-way with a paving width between 20 and 28 feet. Both streets have right-of-way widths of 66 feet or greater. The site is also adjacent to an unimproved 14-foot wide alley (N. Lawrence Alley), which meets the requirement provided in EC Table 9.6870 of 14 feet of right-of-way for a secondary access alley. Since the existing widths exceed the minimum required and since there is adequate room in the existing right-of-way for the missing improvements, no additional right-of-way or special setback is required. EC 9.6875 Private Street Design Standards These standards do not apply because no private streets are proposed. CU 16-06 The Center Page 6 of 7 Page 21  Attachment C (9) The proposal complies with the Traffic Impact Analysis Review provisions of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable. Public Works staff concur with the applicant’s statement that the proposal does not meet the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680. Accordingly, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. CONCLUSION Public Works staff recommends the following conditions of approval:  The applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for improvements of N. Washington Street, Cheshire Avenue, and the public alley (N. Lawrence Alley) adjacent to the site. Informational Items:  Should new or replaced impervious surfaces exceed 1,000 square feet, the standards of EC 9.6792(3)(d)-(g) will be evaluated through the development permit review process. CU 16-06 The Center Page 7 of 7 Page 22  Attachment C Land Use Referral Response Application Type(s): Conditional Use Permit Date: December 22, 2017 To: Althea Sullivan From: Kelly Whitmill Subject: CU 16-6 / In the Center Disclaimer: The following referral comments from Land Use staff reflect a preliminary evaluation of compliance with applicable approval standards and criteria – specific to Land Use issues. These referral comments are intended for review by Planning staff, for incorporation into the City’s written decision on the subject application; however, they do not represent a final determination of compliance with the applicable approval standards and criteria. It is acknowledged that these referral comments are subject to revision upon further coordination with other affected City departments and utility providers. Informational Items:  If a recycling and garbage area is proposed outside of the building, screening must comply with the applicable standards at EC 9.6740.  Conformance with sign standards beginning at EC 9.6600 will be determined at time of sign permit review.  Outdoor lighting must comply with the Outdoor Lighting Standards beginning at EC 9.6725.  In accordance with EC Table 9.6420(1), compact spaces shall be clearly marked as such. Compliance with this standard will be verified at time of building permit review. Page 23 Attachment D Page 24 Attachment D Page 25