Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Atrium Building – Sloat Room https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official 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, JUNE 13, 2018 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION C-2 Height Limit (CI 18-3) Assessors Map: 18-03-06-11 Tax Lot: 03200, 03300 Location: 74 East 18th Avenue Request: Appeal of the Planning Director’s code interpretation (CI 18-3) regarding a limitation to building height on C-2 Community Commercial zoned property within 50 feet of a residential zone found at Eugene Code (EC) section 9.2170(3)(b). Applicant: Cowboys Savannah LLC Appellant’s Representative: Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC Lead City Staff: Kelly Whitmill, Land Use Analyst Telephone: (541) 682-6017 E-mail: kelly.e.whitmill@ci.eugene.or.us II. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION ON ADJUSTMENT REVIEW North Polk Multi-Family (ARA 18-3) Assessors Map: 17-04-25-41 Tax Lot: 04603 Location: North Polk and Cross Street Request: Appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of an Adjustment Review (ARA 18-3) allowing adjustments to Eugene Code (EC) standards at EC 9.6420(3)(c) Parking Area Landscaping Along Street and Driveway Entrances and EC 9.6420(3)(d) Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping. Applicant: Ben Maish LLC Applicant’s Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group Appellant: Marc Popick Lead City Staff: Mike McKerrow, Land Use Analyst Telephone: (541) 682-5288 Page 1 E-mail: mike.j.mckerrow@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 https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official. Page 2 MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2018 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Kelly Whitmill, Land Use Analyst Subject: Code Interpretation for C-2 Height Limit (CI 18-3) ACTION REQUESTED To hold a hearing on June 13, 2018 on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s code interpretation of Eugene Code (EC) 9.2170(3)(b) regarding building height in the C-2 Community Commercial zone (CI 18-3). BACKGROUND The applicant requested an interpretation per EC 9.0040 Land Use Code and Decision Interpretation whether the height limit at EC 9.2170(3)(b) applies to a C-2 zoned property located across an alley from a property zoned R-3 Limited-High Density Residential. The Planning Director’s interpretation is that EC 9.2170(3)(b) restricts the building height in areas zoned C-2 or C-3 and located within 50 feet of a residential zone, to the maximum building height allowed in the residential zone. The specific arguments made to support this interpretation are included in Attachment A, a copy of the Planning Director’s Code Interpretation. This interpretation means that the C-2 property in question would have a height limitation of 50 feet for any buildings located within 50 feet of the R-3 zoned property. The interpretation further explains that for purposes of measuring the 50-foot wide height restriction area, the property boundary between the R-3 zoned property and the alley right-of- way is the starting point—therefore the alley would occupy 14 feet of the required 50-foot wide height restriction area. SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES An appeal was received within the allowed timeline, on May 14, 2018, and was filed by Bill Kloos (Attachment B). The applicant asserts that the height limitation does not apply when the residential zoning is not abutting. The Eugene Land Use Code does not define the word “abutting.” The Applicant argues that the use of the term, based on the plain and ordinary definition, and the presence of the unzoned alley, mean that the subject property is not abutting the residential zoning. Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Director’s code interpretation be affirmed based on the findings and conclusions included in the attached code interpretation provided in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Director’s Code Interpretation B. Appeal Statement C. Written Testimony from Paul Conte Page 4  Attachment A A1 .+ Building & Permit Services May 11, 2018 Bill Kloos Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC 375 W. 4h̀ Avenue, Suite 204 Eugene, OR 97401 Subject: Code Interpretation (Cl 18-3) Summary of Request: 0040 Land Use Code and Decision Interpretation Eugene Land Use Code Section 9. allows the planning director to interpret the land use code when requested. The applicant, Bill Kloos, has requested an interpretation of Eugene Code (EC) 9. 3)( b) 2170( which is shown in bold below: 3) 9. 2 170( Building Height. a) Exceptions to the general height restrictions for commercial structures stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height and Setback Standards are contained in: 1. EC 9. 6715 Height Limitation Areas. 2. 6720 Height Exemptions for Roof Structures and EC 9. Architectural Features. b) Subject to the limitations in subsection (a)of this section, in the C- 2 or C-3 zones, no portion of a building located within 50 feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum building height permitted in the abutting residential zone. c) Subject to the limitations in subsection (a)of this section, the maximum permitted building height for main or accessory buildings in the GO zone shall not exceed 35 feet in height within 50 feet of an abutting AG, R-1, or R-2 zone. Otherwise, main and accessory building height maximums shall not exceed 50 feet. Specifically, the applicant has asked whether this height limit applies to a C-2 zoned property located across an alley from a property that is zoned R-3 Limited-High Density Residential. Findings and Conclusion: The intention of EC 9. 3) 2 170( is to provide a 50- foot buffer where building height is restricted in the transition areas between residential and commercial zones: "...no portion of building a located within 50 feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum building height permitted in the abutting residential zone" ( emphasis City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 . or. www. g e ugene- ov 5086 541- 682- . 541- 5593 682-Fax Page 5 added).The City interprets this section based on this intent; however, the applicant takes issue with the use of the word "abutting" in reference to the neighboring residential zone. The applicant is correct to point out that according to EC 9. 3), 1070( public rights- way of- are "unzoned." The applicant asserts that the presence of unzoned alley right- way of- prevents the two zones from abutting and therefore the height limitation in EC 9. 3) 2 170( does not apply. The Planning Director's interpretation is that EC 9. 3)restricts the building height 21 70( in areas zoned C-2 or C-3 and located within 50 feet of a residential zone, to the maximum building height allowed in the residential zone that is located within 50 feet of the C-2 or C-3 zone. In this context, the word "abutting"means the residential zone abutting the defined 50- foot height limitation area. For the purpose of measuring the 50- foot wide height restriction area, EC 9. 1) 1 070( directs "where [zone] boundaries are indicated as approximately following street lines, alley lines or lot lines, those lines shall be construed to be the boundaries." This means one would use the property line between the residentially-zoned property and the alley right- way of- as the starting point; therefore, in this case the alley occupies 14 feet of the required 50- foot wide height restriction area. Another way to interpret this section consistent with the intent of EC 9. 3), 2170( is that as the alley is unzoned, the two respective zones are abutting in that there is no intermediate zone that separates them. Note that the land use code. language references the relationship between zones, as opposed to properties. Lastly, EC 9. 4) 1 070( directs that officially vacated public ways be zoned consistent with the zone of the property to which the vacated area is attached-note that in alley vacations, the vacated right- way of- is typically equally split between the attached properties (ORS 271.140). This further supports the City's interpretation that unzoned alley right- way of- is inherently attached to neighboring zones and therefore not intended to be interpreted as a barrier. Appeal: Pursuant to EC 9. 0040, any appeals of the. Planning Director's land use code interpretation shall be heard by a Hearings Official in the manner set out in EC 9. 7600 9. 7635. Appeals shall be submitted within 12 days of the date the interpretation was mailed and shall be submitted on a form approved by the City Manager and accompanied by an applicable fee. If you have questions regarding this determination, please contact Kelly Whitmill at 6017 541) 682-eugene. us. e. or. o K w hitmill@ci. elly.r. Sincerely, 9 r~ z r Jenessa Dragovich Senior Planner On Behalf of Eugene Planning Director Page 6  Attachment B LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4T" AVENUE, SUITE 204 BILL KLOOS EUGENE, OR 97401 BILLKLOOS @LANDUSEOREGON.COM TEL: 541. 8596 343. WEB: W W W. COM LANDUSEOREGON. May 14, 2018 Robin Hostick, Planning Director Eugene Planning and Development 99 W. Broadway Eugene, OR 97401 Appeal of Director Interpretation under EC 9. 0040 (CI 18-3) Dear Robin: Please accept this letter, appeal form, and filing fee as an appeal of the Director Code Interpretation issued by Jenessa Dragovich dated May 11, 2108. The interpretation ignores the well- settled methodology established by the Oregon Supreme Court for interpreting the code. The interpretation is result- driven, rather than simply applying the rules for how to read the code. This appeal is filed by the applicant for the Director Interpretation. The applicant requests an interpretation as described in the original interpretation and as further elaborated here. For reasons that are unexplained in the decision, the Director has departed from the well- settled rules for interpreting the code that have been prescribed by the Supreme Court and have been previously followed by the Director and affirmed by the Hearing Official and LUBA and the Court of Appeals. The Hearing Official should correct the interpretation. Introduction: The Director knows the rules for interpretation. The Director's interpretation in the Schnitzer Steel matter is a recent example of the Director applying the methodology correctly. There the question was whether a metal shredder is allowed in the 1-3 zone within the EC Table 9. 2450 use category "Recycling - scrap and dismantling yard (includes vehicle wrecking and salvage)." The Director applied the methodology set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993)and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d 1042 ( 2009).The Hearing Official affirmed the Director interpretation. So, too, did LUBA and the Court of Appeals. See Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. v. City ofEugene, 68 Or LUBA 193 ( 2013),aff'd without opinion 260 Or App 562 (2014). PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 ( 1993),states the correct approach. In interpreting a statute, the court's task is to discern the intent of the legislature. ORS 174.020;State v. Person, 316 Or. 585, 590, 853 P. 2d 813 ( 1993);Teeny v. Haertl Constructors, Inc.,314 Or. 688, 694, 842 P. 2d 788 ( 1992).To do that, the Page 7 Eugene Planning Director May 14, 2018 Page 2 court examines both the text and context of the statute. State v. Person, supra, 316 Or. at 590, 853 P. 2d 813; Southern Pacific Trans. Co. v. Dept. of Rev.,316 Or. 495, 498, 852 P.2d 197 (1993).That is the first level of our analysis." As for the intent of the specific provision,PGE explains: In this first level of analysis, the text of the statutory provision itself is the starting point for interpretation, and is the best evidence of the legislature's intent. State v. Person, supra, 316 Or at 590; State ex rel Juv. Dept. v.Ashley, 312 or 169, 174, 818 P2d 1270 (1991)." PGE, 317 Or at 610. Text: The need for interpretation arises from the apparent inconsistency between the provision's use of the "no portion of a building located within 50 feet of a residential zone" language and the requirement that the C-2 or C-3 zones be "abutting"the residential zone. The issue arises when the two zones are separated by an alley, a road, or some other unzoned geographical or physical feature, and is aggravated by the fact that the Eugene Code does not define the term "abutting." The first error made by the Director was to quote the language being interpreted and then call a specific portion of that language the intent of the code. This is not at all informative. Determining the intent of the specific code provision is the objective of any interpretation. The potentially ambiguous language is not the intent. By definition, the ambiguous language is an unclear meaning of the intent of the specific provision. At best, the language speaks to the governing body's intent to buffer C- 2 and C- 3 uses when those properties abut residential zoned properties, but is silent about instances where such properties are not abutting. The Director fails to provide any basis for the definition the Director chooses for the word abutting"in this standard. The Director says: " In this context, the word "abutting"means the residential zone abutting the defined 50- foot height limitation area."This boils down to: " The abutting residential zone" is the closest residential zone within 50 feet of the commercial even if there is no residential zoning actually touching the commercial property."The Director's interpretation altogether ignores the expressly used term "abutting"in violation of ORS 174.010;' PGE, 317 Or at 611. Furthermore, the Director's interpretation inserts a requirement that is not there - the application of a 50- foot height limitation area in all instances - which also violates ORS 174.010. ORS 174.010 provides: In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." Page 8 Eugene Planning Director May 14, 2018 Page 3 The Director should have started with the approved dictionary definition of " abutting"as the Director did in the Schnitzer Steel matter. That is what the applicant suggested here, pointing to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged. The 2002 issue of that dictionary at page 8 includes the following in the definition for "abut:" 1." To border on: reach or touch with an end."That is consistent with the plain meaning of the word. When that plain meaning of the term "abutting"is applied to the remainder of EC 3)( 9. b), 2170( the term "abutting"acts as a condition precedent for the of the "within 50 feet of a imposition residential zone"height limitation provision. In situations where a C-2 or C-3 property is not abutting a residential zoned property, the plain language of the code implicitly suggests that the intervening features fulfills the buffering function. Each of the Director's three stated reasons attempts to side-step this plain language, textual reading of EC 3)( 9. 2170( b). The first ignores the term "abutting"and reaches out to a non- abutting residential zoned property. The second, which relies upon no language provided in the code, concludes that abutting means that no other intermediate zones separate the C-2 or C-3 property and residential zoned properties, despite the fact that the commercial and residential properties are not in fact abutting. Again, this inserts language that has been omitted from the code. The third invokes property law regarding vacations (ORS Chapter 271)to be controlling for the interpretation of land use regulations (see, ORS e.g., Chapters 197 and 227).Yet the third argument ignores the fact that the two properties of different zones are not abutting until the roadway is actually vacated. None of the arguments is consistent with the proper methodology for interpreting code language. The Director errs by ignoring the plain language of the term " abutting"and by inserting language and requirements that has been omitted from EC 9. 3)( 2170( b). Context: The first step of statutory construction includes a review of the text and context of the provision, which includes other provisions of the same statute and other related statutes. PGE, 317 Or at 611. The word "abutting"appears 116 times in the code. Although contrary to the rules for statutory construction, if the Director intends to rely solely on the context of the term for a definition, and shun the dictionary definition, then the Director at least needs to reconcile his preferred definition with the other 115 instances of the use of the term in the code. Instead, the Director has ignored the other 115 appearances of the term. The most relevant context in the code is language that prescribes height limitations for uses that are near residential uses - the language that the Director hangs her hat on. Does the phrasing of those limitations in the code provide any clue as to the intent whether the limitations apply Page 9  Eugene Planning Director May 14, 2018 Page 4 when the residential zoning in within a certain distance, or only when the residential zoning district is actually touching (" abutting")the zoning that is subject to the height limitation? There is relevant context of this language in the code. The relevant phrase is: " No portion of a building located within 50 feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum."This phrase appears in two locations other than the section at issue here.2 In one instance, the code language expressly includes the "abutting"language included in EC 9. 3)( b) 2170( and in the other, the abutting"language has been omitted. It appears in the Employment zones. EC 9. 1)( c) 2561( provides: Subject to the limitations in (a)and (b)of this subsection, in the E-1 and E-2 zones, no portion of a building located within 50 feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum building height permitted in the abutting residential zone." emphasis added] It also appears in the Chase Node Special Area Zone. EC 4)( 9. 3065( b) provides: Height Limitation. No portion of a building located within 50 feet of a residential zone shall exceed the maximum height in that residential zone's or overlay zone's accessory building height limit." [ emphasis added] The language for the Employment zone is exactly the same as the language in question for the Commercial zones - it expressly includes an "abutting"requirement. In contrast, the language for the Chase Node Special Area Zone is different in a relevant and material way - it omits an abutting"requirement. When a legislative body uses a term in one section and not in another section of the same statute, this indicates a purposeful omission. PGE, 317 Or at 611. In other words, when a legislative body employs different language in different statutory provisions, it is assumed that the legislature intended the language to have significance and the two provisions to have different meaning. Century Properties, LLC. v. City of Corvallis, 207 Or App 8, 13, 139 P3d 990 (2006); State v. Glaspey, 337 Or 558, 564-65, 100 P3d 730 (2004). As seen from the provisions quoted above, the Eugene Code expressly distinguishes between when a height limitation applies because the property abuts a residential and when it zone, applies because it is within 50 feet of a residential zone. The code provision at issue here, EC 3)( 9. b) 2170( is explicit that the height limitation sticks when a C-2 or C-3 zoned property abuts a residential zone. That is not the case for the applicant's property - it abuts an alley which, as the Director concedes, is unzoned. 2 The Applicant does not include the remainder of EC 3), 9. 2170( namely subsection (c), which uses the " as well. abutting"language Page 10 Eugene Planning Director May 14, 2018 Page 5 The above distinction should be dispositive. The Director can't read into this code provision an intent to measure the 50- foot limitation from the residential zoning even when the residential zone is not abutting, because when the code intends that it explicitly states so. The Chase Node regulations are an example. Here, EC 9. 3) 2 170( explicitly imposes an abutting requirement. Conclusion: The above analysis demonstrates that the Director has misinterpreted the code in this instance. The correct interpretation of the code is that when the code includes the qualifying phrase abutting residential zone,"it means that the limitation does not apply when the residential zoning is not abutting. Given the plain and ordinary definition of the term "abut"or "abutting," and the context surrounding the use of similar language elsewhere in the Eugene Code, the height limitation does not apply to the subject property, because the presence of the unzoned alley means that the subject property is not abutting the residential zoning. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Free zeow Bill Kloos Cc: Clients Page 11 Attachment C Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2018 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Mike McKerrow, Land Use Analyst Subject: Appeal of North Polk Multi-Family Adjustment Review (ARA 18-13) ACTION REQUESTED To hold a hearing on June 13, 2018 on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s Decision approving an Adjustment Review for modifying landscaping standards for a new 20 unit multi- family housing development known as North Polk Multi-Family (ARA 18-13). BACKGROUND The R-2 Medium Density Residential zoned lot was created through a City approved partition in 2016 (PF 16-15). The lot has access to N. Polk Street via a 26-foot wide “pole” portion of the flat lot. To meet applicable standards for a multi-family development, a minimum 20-foot wide vehicular driveway is required (see Eugene Code EC 9.5500(11)(b)(1.)(a)). Driveways are required to have an L-2 Low Screen landscape border (EC 9.6420(3)(c)), and an L-3 High Screen seven-foot wide landscape bed is required between the driveway and the residential properties to the north and south (see EC 9.6420(3)(d)). Since not all of the required standards can be met within the pole portion of the site—due to the width of the pole—vehicle and pedestrian access was prioritized and two adjustments to applicable landscaping standards were submitted. The first adjustment was to the standard at EC 9.6420(3)(c) Parking Area Landscaping Along Street and Driveway Entrances which requires an L-2 Low Screen landscape bed seven feet in width on both sides of the driveway entrance from the public street. The second adjustment request was to the standard at EC 9.6420(3)(d) Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping which requires an L-3 High Screen landscape bed seven feet in width around the vehicle use area when adjacent to a residential zone. Based on the definition at EC 9.0500, the driveway is part of the vehicle use area. On April 27, 2018 the Eugene Planning Director conditionally approved an Adjustment Review application for 20 units of multi-family housing with modified landscaping (Attachment A). It is noted that the City is obligated to reach a final decision within 120 days of the application being deemed complete. In this case, a final decision must be reached by September 10, 2018. Page 15 SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES An appeal was received within the allowed timeline, on May 14, 2018, and was filed by Marc Popick (Attachment B). The appeal does not specifically address any approval criteria and has two main themes addressed below: 1. Use and Enjoyment Easement The appeal states that the use and enjoyment easement east of the appellant’s dwelling at 93 N. Polk Street requires common space that is open and inviting with no plantings, screens, fences or structures that give the appearance of private ownership. It is stated that if the property owner provides the land use code required L-2 landscape beds between the vehicle use area and property lines, it will create a visual border that makes it appear to be part of the new multi-family project. The Eugene land use code provides direction on when private easements and zoning regulations are in conflict. EC 9.1020 Applicability of Zoning Regulations states that “in those instances where zoning regulations impose a greater restriction or higher standard than required by an easement, covenant or other agreement between private parties, or where the zoning regulations otherwise conflict with those private party agreements, the zoning regulations shall control.” [emphasis added] Based on the clarity of the land use code that compliance with existing private easement agreements is not considered for land use application approval, the Planning Director’s findings and decision should be affirmed. 2. Negative Impact from Buildings and Plantings The appeal states that “the building and plantings are not consistent with the general landscape standards in that the building and plantings negatively impact the value of adjacent and on-site natural area, being that the roots of large walnut tree will be greatly disturbed.” It appears that this is an argument based on the language of the private use and enjoyment easement, and as previously established, the Eugene land use code controls in the case of conflict with private agreements. The applicant has not shown that the Planning Director errored in finding compliance with the applicable adjustment review criteria; therefore, the Planning Director’s findings and decision should be affirmed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As the arguments raised by the appellant do not directly relate to the applicable approval criteria, or otherwise identify an error with the Planning Directors decision, staff recommends the Planning Director’s decision to approve ARA 18-3 be affirmed. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Director’s Decision B. Appeal Statement Page 16  Attachment A Atrium Building 401-1h." 99 West 1011 Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541- 5377 682- WPIanning planning or. www.g e Fax: 541- ugene- ov/ 5572 682- FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: FAMILY (ARA 18- ADJUSTMENT REVIEW FOR N. POLK MULTI- 3) Application Summary: Requested adjustments to Eugene Code (EC)standards at EC 9. 3)( c) 6420( Parking Area Landscaping Along Street and Driveway Entrances and EC 9. 3)( 6420( d) Perimeter Parkin;Area Landscaping. Applicant: Ben Maish LLC, Owner Applicant's Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, ( 541)686-4540 Lead City Staff: Mike McKerrow, Land Use Analyst, Eugene Building Permit Services Division, ( 541)682-5288 Subject Property/ Location: Zoning/ The subject property is located east of the intersection of N. Polk Street and Cross Street with an address of 95 N. Polk Street; Tax Lot 4603 of Assessor's Map 25- 17- 4 01; 4- Zoned R-2 Medium-Density Residential. Relevant Dates: Adjustment Review Application (ARA)submitted on February 16, 2018; deemed complete on March 14, 2018; decision granting approval issued on April 27, 2018. Background and Present Request The applicant is requesting two adjustments. The first is to the standard at EC 9. 3)( c) 6420( Parking Area Landscaping Along Street and Driveway Entrances which require an L-2 Low Screen landscape bed seven feet in width on both sides of the driveway entrance from the public street. The second adjustment request is to the standard at EC 9. 3)(6420( d) Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping which requires an L-3 High Screen landscape bed seven feet in width around the vehicle use area when adjacent to a residential zone. Findings & Decision: ARA 18-3 April 27, 2018 Page Page 1 17 These landscaping standards are required per EC 9. 3)( 2. 6 a) d 420(since the owner plans to pave the pole portion of the lot to create a two- way ingress and egress.driveway to a 20 dwelling multi-family site with three two story buildings. Building permits 18- 01, 0 01672- and 1671- 18- 01 01 18- 01673- describe the proposed work and are under current review. This R-2 zoned lot is slightly over.7 acres in size and contains a single family dwelling (which will be demolished) along with numerous trees. The eastern portion of the site is surrounded by other R-2 zoned properties to the north and south. Abutting the southern portion of the west property line is an R-2 zoned lot with a single family dwelling. Abutting the site to the east, northwest and southwest are a total of five R-1 zoned lots, each with a single family dwelling. The lot abutting the site to the northwest is part of the development site since it is common ownership. The Adjustment Review is a Type II application and the criteria are found at EC 9. 8030. The relevant Type II land use application procedures are primarily addressed at EC 9. 7200 through 7230. The following evaluation includes a review of the applicant's proposed compliance EC 9. with these applicable application approval criteria and related standards. For additional background information and details of the applicant's proposal, please refer to the applicant's written statement, site plans and other supplemental information within the application file. Referrals/Public Notice Upon deeming this application complete on March 14, 2018, the Planning Division provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. The Planning Division also mailed notice of the applications on March 19, 2018, in accordance with the applicable requirements of EC 9. 7210. Penelope Tyrrell, resident and owner of the R-2 lot between the site and the street south of the access driveway of the subject lot and with an address of 93 N. Polk submitted testimony. She stated concern about trees, sidewalks, walls and questioned if a project sign was required in addition to the mailed public notice. She shared that the previous property owner entered into a private "Use and Enjoyment"easement to the east of her property in part to allow her access to a mature walnut trees. Staff let her know that per Eugene Code (EC)9. 1020, private easements don't have an effect on land use code standards. Adjustment Review Evaluation 8020 Adjustment Review - Applicability confirms that this process is available only where EC 9. this land use code states that a specific standard may be adjusted. Two adjustments are requested. The first is to the standard at EC 9. 3)( c) 6420( Parking Area Landscaping Along Street and Driveway Entrances which require an L-2 Low Screen landscape bed seven feet in width on Findings & Decision: ARA 18-3 April 27, 2018 Page 2 Page 18 both sides of the driveway entrance from the public street. The second adjustment request is to the standard at EC 9. 3)( 6420( d) Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping which requires an L- 3 High Screen landscape bed seven feet in width around the parking area adjacent to any residential zone. Adjustments 3 perimeter standards is allowed per EC 2 driveway entrance and L- An adjustment to the L- 6440 if consistent with the criteria in EC 9. 9. 8030, the 030( In accordance with EC 9. 10). 8 Planning Director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an Adjustment Review application, with approval or conditional approval based on compliance with the listed criteria. The criterion for this specific adjustment is provided below (in bold).Findings of compliance are included. 10)Motor Vehicle Parking and Loading Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that the motor vehicle parking standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon finding the applicable corresponding criteria are met. c) Parking Area Standards. Adjustments may be made to the landscape standards of EC 9.3) 6 420( upon finding that the proposed landscape is consistent with the following applicable criteria: 1. Provides visual separation, as needed, between adjacent development. 2. Provides clearly defined parking area entrances and on- site pedestrian circulation. 3. Enhances and softens the appearance of parking structures. 4. Breaks up large expanses of parking. 5. Protects or mitigates the loss of significant trees or other natural features on or adjacent to the development. 1. Provides visual separation, as needed, between adjacent development. The City approved the current lot configuration in 2016 (PT 16- The pole portion is 26 feet 4). way driveway width is 20 feet and a critical 4 foot wide sidewalk wide. Since the minimum two- is proposed to prevent the need to walk in the driveway, the remaining 2 feet (one on each side is not enough to support landscaping. The applicant proposes to install a 6 foot high solid wood fence on the north property line along the pole portion of the lot, except for a 42 inch high section within the 10 foot front yard setback required by the land used code. The fence will provide a strong visual separation from the driveway to the lot to the north. 3 landscape bed will be provided at the south property line between the access A 7 foot wide L- driveway and the abutting property to the south to enhance the mature walnut tree. In addition, a 7 foot wide L-2 landscape bed will be installed between the apartment parking stalls and the lot to the east providing a visual separation from that view. Findings & Decision: ARA 18-3 April 27, 2018 Page Page 3 19 The site plan submitted shows no visual separation provided between the driveway and the property to the south. To comply with this criterion, a similar fence as proposed along the north property line, including a gate to provide pedestrian access at the entrance to the existing house, is required as a condition of approval. See criteria number 2 below for the condition. 2. Provides clearly defined parking area entrances and on- site pedestrian circulation. The driveway entrance is clearly delineated by the 20 foot wide driveway, sidewalk and fence all visible from N. Polk Street. The four foot wide sidewalk is critical to provide pedestrian access for the 20 dwellings proposed and increases safety by not having to use the driveway itself for access. Additional sidewalks abutting the three proposed buildings provide access from each unit to every other unit as required by the multi- family standards. In response to the public testimony, the proposed 4 foot wide sidewalk should be relocated to the north property line of the pole portion of the lot.The following condition addressing criteria 1 and 2 applies: The applicant shall install a 6 foot high solid wood fence along the south property line along the pole portion of the lot,except for a 42 inch high section within the 10 foot front yard setback. The proposed sidewalk along the southern boundary of the pole portion of the lot shall be relocated to the northern boundary within the pole area. A final site plan showing the required fence along the south property line and the relocation of the on- site pedestrian sidewalk to the north property line along the pole portion of the driveway is required prior to building permit approval. 3. Enhances and softens the appearance of parking structures. This criterion is not applicable since a parking structure is not proposed. 4. Breaks up large expanses of parking. The project includes 21 parking spaces mostly in a single row.The land use code requires additional standards to mitigate impacts from large parking areas of 50 spaces or more. Staff does not consider 21 spaces to be a large expanse of parking. The parking area is internal to the site and buffered by the three proposed buildings to the south, east and north of the vehicle use area. In addition, plants are proposed around the perimeter of all three buildings. 5. Protects or mitigates the loss of significant trees or other natural features on or adjacent to the development. The applicant proposes to keep a mature 30 in diameter Walnut tree at the southwest portion of the site. In addition, several walnut trees will be retained on the other lot of the development site to the northwest of the lot being redeveloped. Findings & Decision: ARA 18-3 April 27, 2018 Page Page 4 20 Decision Based on the available information and evidence, and based on the preceding findings of 8030, this Adjustment Review is approved compliance with applicable approval criteria in EC 9. with the following condition: The applicant shall install a 6 foot high solid wood fence along the south property line along the pole portion of the lot, except for a 42 inch high section within the 10 foot front yard setback. The proposed sidewalk along the southern boundary of the pole portion of the lot shall be relocated to the northern boundary within the pole area. A final site plan showing the required fence along the south property line and the relocation of the on- site pedestrian sidewalk to the north property line along the pole portion of the driveway is required prior to building permit approval. Informational Item Since the lot is over 20,000 square feet a tree removal permit is required if more than five trees over 8 inches in diameter will be removed within a 12 month period. Post Approval Pursuant to EC 9. 3), 7220( the Planning Director's decision regarding these Type II applications is effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed, unless appealed according to the procedures in EC 9. 7605. Once the decision becomes effective, pursuant to EC 9. 7230, the Planning Director' s approval of these II Type applications shall remain effective for 18 months. As stated in EC 9. 9), 7230( the requirement for the applicant to submit an application for a development permit or the approval shall expire has already been satisfied. This approval does not relieve the applicant of complying with other applicable provisions of the Eugene Code or Oregon Revised Statutes, which may otherwise govern the development of the subject property. Approval Date: I'f t. Approved By: ~_ Vl J v"c'l._ Jenessa Dragovich, Senior Hanner, for Eugene Planning Director Findings & Decision: ARA 18-3 April 27, 2018 Page Page 5 21  A Attachment B A ti 3 b, ~ 5 off` ' I k < 04A,5 2<iK'eti A-f y C~ CA I I ' S~ mo' ~ Wet C17~4LB ni 0bi G~.~ L'~ ~ r Q A a// f~ S> d- Pee ~ C> n fat-i t~ L/C: USej re , rte}t ~. ~ P~~ q Ll Cct 14J- e-- t 12 ' 0 "+ 1? rC) sQ-d ~~~ S t~ cU r~ 1 j ~ o3 J bud, A -e- we do hod- J 1 vt. i~ ~ 1 b1 e- ~ Page 22  I CK C- f- 4- F er~ ' if c k7a,, l fs Of f Vk- ray w`~~ i~ lain i iq C/ 1~,jis cu S; fI o' Po 1 ~ etc Po 4 kl' Page 23