Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room, Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5377 99 West 10th Avenue https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official Eugene, OR 97401 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: (541)682-5481. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019 – 5:00 p.m. I. Public Hearing: Appeal of Planning Director Decision for Hansen, Jasen (ARA 19-10) Request: Appeal of an Adjustments to perimeter parking area landscaping at EC 9.6420(3)(d)1., and minimum landscape area at EC 9.5500(8)(a). Owner/Applicant: Jasen Hansen Representatives: TBG Architects & Planners Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-03-32-33 / 07700 Address or Location: Mill Street Lead City Staff: Mike McKerrow, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5288, 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.  Atrium Building 99 west 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Staff Report Date: November 13, 2019 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Mike McKerrow, Land Use Analyst, City of Eugene Building Division Subject: Appeal of Adjustment Review Approval for Jason Hansen (Mill Street Apartments) (City File ARA 19-10) ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED To hold a public hearing on November 20, 2019 and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s decision approving an Adjustment Review for the development of an apartment building. An abutting property owner filed a valid appeal which will be considered at the public hearing. BACKGROUND On October 8, 2019, the Planning Director approved a minor Adjustment Review for the development of a 3-story 6-unit apartment building with grade-level tandem parking off the alley. The subject site is located one lot south of the southwest corner of Mill Street and East 15th Avenue and is addressed 1524 Mill Street. The project site consists of one lot that is currently vacant. The lot is zoned R-3 Limited High-Density Residential. The applicant requested adjusting perimeter landscaping beds for the parking area at the west end of the site and adjusting the minimum landscape area required under the multi-family standards. The Planning Director’s decision includes a summary of the proposal along with findings that address applicable standards and approval criteria for the requested adjustments (Eugene Code (EC) 9.8030(3)(a) and (10)(c)). The Planning Director concluded that all applicable standards and criteria were met. A full copy of the Planning Director’s decision is included as Attachment C for ease of reference. On October 22, 2019, an appeal was filed by Mark Steven Baker, asserting the Planning Director’s decision was in error and challenging the findings of the adjustments. Public notice of the November 20, 2019 appeal hearing was mailed on October 30, 2019. No written testimony has been received as of the date of this report. If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this staff report, it will also be forwarded and added to the record. Background information on this appeal, including the application materials and site plans, is included in the full record of materials provided separately. 1 APPEAL PROCEDURES The appeal hearing will follow the quasi-judicial procedures as required by EC 9.7625 and EC 9.7065 – EC 9.7095. The decision on these appeals will be based on whether the Planning Director properly evaluated the request and made a decision consistent with applicable approval criteria for the Adjustment Review at EC 9.8030(3)(a) and (10)(c). The decision on this appeal will be made within 15 days from the close of the public record, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Hearings Official may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director. Once made, the decision of the Hearings Official will be final at the local level. The applicant originally granted a 21-day extension on September 6, 2019, when the application was modified after the first public comment period. When the appeal was received, the applicant granted an additional 35-day extension. Therefore, the final local decision on these appeals is currently required by January 8, 2020 to meet the modified 120-day deadline. Appeals of Planning Director Decisions are subject to the provisions at EC 9.7600 through EC 9.7635, except that this appeal is not subject to EC 9.7605(3). Because the decision on the adjustment review is a “permit” as defined by ORS 227.160(2), in accordance with ORS 227.175(10), the appeal hearing shall be de novo (new evidence and information may be submitted) and the presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence is not limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: To assist the decision-making process in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. A summary of the appeal statements are provided below in bold italics, followed by staff comments. The appeal filed by Mark Steven Backer asserts that the Planning Director’s decision for the two adjustments was approved in error. The following discussion organizes the appeal issues and staff comments presented in the written appeal statement. 1. The Planning Director erred by approving an adjustment to the Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping Standards and failing to address a landscape standard at EC 9.6420(3)(d)(3)(a) relating to the type of plants required for a certain landscape bed. The Planning Director’s findings specifically addressed the approval criteria at EC 9.8030(10)(c) for modifying the width of the perimeter parking area landscape bed from 7 feet (required by EC 9.6420(3)(d)1.) to 3.5 feet; however, the appellant correctly identifies an unintentional omission of also addressing an adjustment to EC 9.6420(3)(d)3.a. that calls for L-3 perimeter landscaping adjacent to residential property. All of the parking area landscape standards found under EC 9.6420(3) are adjustable based on compliance with the same approval criteria at EC 9.8030(10)(c), which the Planning Director correctly found were met. The intent of the adjustment was to approve the replacement of the required L-3 landscape bed at the south property line next to the parking area with a sidewalk and 6-foot-high solid wood fence. The applicant requested this specific adjustment on page 2 of the application received August 28, 2019. The applicant chose this modification to the original site plan to address the appellant’s testimony about the need for pedestrian access to the alley to reduce the likelihood of residents walking through the north 2 landscape bed. As already stated in the Planning Director’s findings, the solid wood fence provides adequate visual separation between the parking area and the residential use to the south. Staff recommends the Hearings Official modify the Planning Director’s decision by incorporating the inadvertently omitted adjustment to the perimeter parking area landscaping subsection (EC 9.6420(3)(d)3.a.) into the findings and decision for Adjustment Request #1. Suggested edits, highlighted in light grey, are provided below. Starting on page 3 of the Planning Director’s decision: Adjustment Request #1 Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping An adjustment to the Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping standards at EC 9.6420(3)(d)1 and EC 9.6420(3)(d)3.a. are is allowed per EC 9.6440 if consistent with the criteria in EC 9.8030(10)(c). (3) Landscape Standards. *** (d) Perimeter Parking Area Landscaping. 1. Along the perimeter of the parking area, except for developments within a /TD overlay zone, a landscape strip, at least 7 feet in width, measured from the outside edge of a 6 inch wide curb, shall be provided. The landscape strip may be pierced by pedestrian and vehicular accessways. Where abutting lots share parking and/or loading areas, the perimeter of these shared areas shall be considered the outside of the functional areas. Perimeter landscaping shall not be required along the interior lot lines of the 2 lots that are sharing parking and/or loading areas. *** 3. All parking areas shall provide perimeter landscaping according to the following standards: a. Parking areas adjacent to property that is zoned residentially shall provide perimeter landscaping along interior yards according to EC 9.6210(3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3). Where loading areas abut property zoned residentially, a barrier shall be provided between the 2 uses according to EC 9.6210(4) High Wall Standard (L-4). The appellant also asserted the Planning Director erred by not including specific information about the amount of landscaping required by the general standard versus the proposed amount. The Planning Director’s findings accurately state that there is no minimum landscape requirement in the R-3 base zone. The findings further show how the applicable approval criteria for adjusting the minimum landscape area required by the multi-family standards were met. 3 The approval criteria do not call for an accounting or comparison of the amount of landscaping required by the general standard versus the proposed amount; however, staff provides the following details as additional information. The site plan identifies the lot area at 8,402 square feet. The general standard requires 20 percent of the development site or 15 percent of the livable floor area, whichever is greater, to be landscaped. To meet the standard, 1,879 square feet of landscaping would be required as 15 percent of the livable floor area is greater than 20 percent of the development site in this case. Under the adjustment review option, the applicant requested a reduction to 1,302 square feet. This equates to approximately 15.5 percent of the development site, or 10.4 percent of the livable floor area. The appellant also asserted that only a masonry wall can be substituted for the high shrubs and that the groundcover and canopy trees must still be installed. Staff points out that the masonry wall substitution is allowed outright without an adjustment as an option to comply with the L-3 standard. In this case, a substitution is not needed as the perimeter parking area landscape standard is being adjusted through EC 9.8030(10)(c). The approval criteria do not specifically require any landscaping or fencing for compliance. 2. The Planning Director erred by approving an adjustment to the Minimum Landscape Area required under EC 9.550[0](8)(a). The appellant states that the error was based on a misinterpretation of the applicable adjustment provisions. Mr. Baker surmises that because the adjustment review approval criterion at EC 9.8030(3)(d) states that the altered design must use “landscape screening to provide a physical and visual separation between uses and development” then there must be some landscaping for any L-3 adjustment. The L-3 standard at EC 9.6210(3) allows an adjustment through EC 9.8030(3)(d), as referenced by the appellant. However, some standards have more than one adjustment review path with different approval criteria based on the standard being adjusted or the use for which the landscape bed is required. A review of EC Table 9.6205, that lists the types of uses requiring various landscape treatments, shows that the L-3 High Screen standard is required for pump stations, interior yards for commercial and some industrial properties next to residential property, as well as for garbage screening in some zones. For these situations, the only option to adjust the standard resides at EC 9.6210(3) and the associated approval criterion at EC 9.8030(3)(d) does require landscaping screening. For landscaping required due to parking and vehicle related uses, however, adjustments are allowed per EC 9.6440 and the applicable approval criteria at EC 9.8030(10)(c) do not specifically require landscaping. Therefore, the Planning Director did not err. The appellant also believes the Planning Director erred in not requiring a detailed landscape plan reviewed by an arborist, landscape architect or other landscape professional. The applicable approval criteria do not require a detailed landscape plan. Plans submitted with the modified application, dated August 27, 2019, include a site plan that clearly shows the areas of landscaping. It is common practice for staff to require proposed landscaped areas be shown with the appropriate treatment (i.e., L-1, L-2, L-3, etc.), but to wait for the building permit process to require and review detailed landscape plans showing the specific plant species, spacing and sizes. This ensures compliance with the landscaping standards can be met at the beginning stages of a 4 project while providing some flexibility on the specifics until the construction phase. This also helps avoid locking in specific plants at a time when the designer may not know exactly what stock will be available closer to the time of planting. The appellant stated concerns about the viability of proposed canopy trees in the reduced-width planting beds. Staff notes that a member of the land use team is a certified arborist and is available for consultation when needed. The 3.5-foot landscape strip is similar too and larger than many street tree wells. Based on experience, staff is confident that the canopy tree to be planted in the north perimeter bed can grow to a mature size in the available space. 3. The Planning Director’s findings do not include an evaluation of the Adjustment Review Purpose section EC 9.8015(1). The appellant asserts the Planning Director erred in not providing findings that respond to the purpose section for adjustment reviews. He states that the findings do not speak to the intent of adjustments that a specific alternate design creatively meets or exceeds the specific development standard. Throughout the Eugene land use code, purpose sections help provide context and general direction. However, they are rarely called out as specific approval criteria. When standards can be adjusted, the language is clear on the specific approval criteria that apply. Neither of the standards included in the adjustment request cite the purpose section as required approval criteria. In contrast, the approval criteria at EC 9.8030(9) for adjustments to bicycle parking standards do require consistency with the purpose of bicycle parking standards. Staff also notes that EC 9.0050 specifically states that “the content of these [purpose] sections shall not constitute approval criteria or be used to interpret such criteria unless the sections are specifically referenced for that purpose in another section of this land use code.” As such, the Planning Director did not err in not making findings relative to the adjustment review purpose section. 4. EC 9.2750(b)3 (not a valid code citation) prohibits parking within the interior yard setback. Staff believe the appellant meant to cite EC 9.2751(15)(b)3, which provides parking standards for R-3 and R-4 zones. However, these standards do not apply to development that is subject to the Multi-Family Development standards. Since this project is subject to multi-family standards, the referenced prohibition on parking in the interior yard setback is not applicable. Staff also points out that EC 9.6745(7) allows parking within required front and interior yard setbacks in residential zones subject to some restrictions. The restrictions do not apply in this case; therefore, the proposed parking space intrusions are allowed. Staff also points out that this issue does not pertain to the requested adjustments or applicable approval criteria. 5. There is no location for garbage and recycling containers on site. The first-floor plan, in the plans submitted with the application, show that roll carts for garbage and recycling will be stored in the individual bicycle storage rooms for each of the six units. The applicant has stated that roll carts will be taken to the street by the residents for pick up. Staff 5 points out that this is a standard that will be reviewed for at the time of building permit and is not related to the requested adjustments or applicable approval criteria. RECOMMENDATION Based on the available information to date, staff recommends that the Planning Director’s decision be modified as described under appeal issue #1 above. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. Planning Director’s Decision D. Mark Steven Baker Written Appeal Statement The full record to date is being provided to the Hearings Official, separately. Materials from the application file, including application materials, site plans, public testimony, referrals, the Planning Director’s decision and appeals are also available on the City’s website as a courtesy, at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=ARA-19-0010 A hardcopy of the record materials can also be made available for free inspection at the Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies may also be obtained at a reasonable cost. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Mike McKerrow, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, by phone at: 541-682-5288 or via email at MMcKerrow@eugene-or.gov 6  ARA 19-10 Hansen, Jasen (Mill Street Apartments) Vicinity Map Attachment A E 14TH ALY E 15TH AVE MILL ST HIGH ST MILL ALY FERRY ALY E 16TH AVE E 16TH AVE MILL ST Eugene UGB Caution: This map is based on Subject Property imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Eugene City Limits Created on 11/13/2019 Taxlots by City of Eugene Planning Division ^ 0 20 40 80 Ft N  L~~ Leb eEbl-bo'3o 3~ n3~~.~.. V~ a sI Ina 31v'h• V3 H,3f M09Z N36NVH N35Vf Nv~ d CIS VLJU `/~ on 0 di S Si Si S{ 0 6 Q 371~ H1187 Z ° , pi'e doll N.71I N L5 G~ o p o ~ m p Z 0 worQ 4 0 N~ Q R. T 81. z w UI kJk S~ OW 2222 DO h nm~ mo z mQ v HL N a OWN z a~ a o=~ ~ Q Z w Q w aH w w aAA tu x l~ ao ao O j 13 zz 1 11 1 11 IN z v we a LU z JOHN m z IN IL Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D