Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Virtual Meeting (via Zoom) Phone: 541-682-5377 https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in this agenda item. As this meeting is being held virtually, feel free to join in, or come and go as you please during the meeting. For questions about accessing the virtual meeting, see the instructions* below or contact the Planning Division: (541) 682-5377. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 – 5:00 p.m. I. Public Hearing: Howard Meadows (ST 20-2) Request: Appeal of the Planning Director’s conditional approval of a Tentative Subdivision – Needed Housing to create 12 residential lots. Owner/Applicant: Burnham, Jake Representative: Anthony Favreau, The Favreau Group Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-04-14-42 / 6500 Address / Location: 625 Howard Ave Lead City Staff Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Planning Division 541-682-5485 ASullivan@eugene-or.gov *IMPORTANT NOTE: To take preventative measures for community members and staff safety against the spread of COVID-19, this public hearing will be performed virtually. No interested parties may attend the public meeting in person. Instead, staff has provided alternative opportunities for interested parties to participate and stay safe. Therefore, the following opportunities are available to participate in this land use process: HOW TO ACCESS THE MEETING • To join/watch the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone (allows participation in Public Comment): https://zoom.us/j/91573450366 • To join by phone (allows participation in Public Comment): Dial one of the below numbers and enter the Meeting ID: 915 7345 0366.  Dial: +1-669-900-6833 or Toll Free 1-877-853-5257 (US) For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location. International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/adQtmy9gml • To Submit Written Testimony: You may submit written testimony by email to ASullivan@eugene-or.gov or by mail to Planning Division, c/o Althea Sullivan, 99 W 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97405. Written Testimony must be received by the close of the public record. To sign-up to speak for Public Comment: o For those viewing the meeting on a computer, laptop, or other device, click once on the blue “hand” icon. o For those listening to the meeting on a phone, press *9 (Star-9) o All persons providing comment will be asked to provide their name, address, and whether they are in support, neutral, or in opposition to the application. Public Hearing Format 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant 3. *Public Testimony from others in support of application. 4. *Comments or questions from interested persons who are not proponents, nor opponents of the proposal (neutral persons). 5. *Public testimony from those in opposition to the application. 6. Staff response to testimony. 7. Questions from Hearings Official. 8. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 9. Closing of public hearing. *Due to the virtual meeting platform, the order of speakers will be based on order that persons sign-up to speak, as opposed to the order noted above. For this reason, each person providing comment will be asked to state whether they are in support, are neutral, or in opposition to the application. 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 record. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, please contact the lead City staff noted above or provide public comment. The decision will also be posted at https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official. City of Eugene - Hearings Official Ph.: (541) 682-5377 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: September 23, 2020 To: Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Eugene Hearings Official From: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Appeal of the Planning Director’s conditional approval of a Tentative Subdivision – Needed Housing to create 12 residential lots (City File: Howard Meadows, ST 20-2). ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED To hold a public hearing on September 30, 2020 and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s decision conditionally approving an application for Tentative Subdivision – Needed Housing, known as Howard Meadows, to create 12 residential lots. The appellant, Steve Norris, was joined by the River Road Community Organization in filling a single appeal which raises several issues with the application of stormwater standards and proposed grading as they relate to the applicant’s proposal. BACKGROUND On August 13, 2020, the Planning Director conditionally approved the subject application for Howard Meadows to create 12 residential lots. The subject property is located at 625 Howard Avenue, is 1.88 acres in size, and is currently zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. The applicant’s proposal includes the extension of a public street, Lake Drive, through the property to the northern property line. The street will end with an emergency vehicle turnaround extending to the east towards Rosewood Avenue. The emergency vehicle turnaround will provide public access from the applicant’s site to Rosewood Avenue for pedestrians, cyclists, and other forms of transportation other than vehicles. The site is currently developed with structures located on proposed Lots 1 and 2, which the applicant proposes to remove. For ease of reference, a vicinity map showing the subject property and surrounding area is included as Attachment A. The applicant’s proposed Tentative Subdivision plan is included as Attachment B. The Planning Director’s decision includes additional information about the applicant’s request, and findings related to the approval criteria provided by EC 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria – Needed Housing. Additionally, the Planning Director considered testimony provided during the initial comment period, some of which relates to the issues raised in the current appeal. A full copy of the Planning Director’s decision is included as Attachment C. Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 1 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 1 of 67 On August 31, 2020, Steve Norris, joined by the River Road Community Organization, submitted an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision. The appeal is focused on the management of stormwater and grading on the subject site. The criteria and standards in question appear to be limited to EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control, EC 9.6792 Stormwater Quality, and EC 9.8520(5) which limits grading on slopes of 20% or more. In an effort to organize the discussion of the issues raised in the written appeal statement, staff has grouped them according to the relevant approval criteria in the Planning Director’s decision, with an initial staff response (see below) to assist the Hearings Official in making a final decision on the appeal. Based on these issues, the appellant asserts that the Planning Director’s decision should be overturned, or the process must include new materials and additional time for review by the neighborhood. The full appeal statements are provided in Attachment D. In accordance with EC 9.7615, public notice of the September 30, 2020 appeal hearing was mailed on September 9, 2020. Written testimony was received from the applicant and another party as of the date of this report, for reference the materials are included in Attachment E. If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this staff report, it will also be forwarded and added to the record. Finally, extensive background information on this appeal, including the application materials, supporting evidence and site plans, is included in the full record of materials provided separately. APPEAL PROCEDURES Appeals of Planning Director decisions are subject to the provisions at EC 9.7600 through 9.7635. The appeal hearing will follow the quasi-judicial procedures as required by EC 9.7625 and EC 9.7065-9.7095. The decision on this appeal will be based on whether the Planning Director properly evaluated the request and made a decision consistent with applicable approval criteria provided by EC 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria – Needed Housing. 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 final local decision on these appeals is required by October 30, 2020 to meet the statutory 120-day deadline, unless extended with the applicant’s agreement. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE To assist with 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. The appeal issue topics are provided below with headings in bold italics, followed by a brief summary of the appellant’s relevant assertions and staff comments. Again, please refer to Attachment D for the appellant’s full written statement(s). Appeal Issue #1: EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control The appellant provides arguments on several pages of their appeal that assert that the above standard has not been met, even as conditioned by the Planning Director, and that a serious threat is posed to adjacent properties from stormwater runoff. A theme of the arguments appears to be Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 2 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 2 of 67 an assertion that prior to approval of a Tentative Subdivision, calculations for all impervious surfaces must be provided and approved by the City. Additionally, concerns are raised about the treatment of stormwater from proposed embankments. During the review process for a Tentative Subdivision - Needed Housing, the Planning Director reviews the applicant’s materials for compliance with standards and approval criteria. At this tentative phase, details need to demonstrate that the project is feasible with an understanding that future review of details at the site development and building permit phase will require more specific analysis. Typically, the Planning Director does not get into the specific calculations, grading details, or other items which may change slightly as a project is platted and construction of public improvements occurs. In this case, the Planning Director provided two conditions of approval related to EC 9.6791 due to concerns raised by neighbors, lack of a thorough written narrative from the applicant, and multiple sets of materials submitted by the applicant. The conditions of approval were required as a solution to remedy the lack of clarity, even though the Planning Director also noted that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that meeting EC 9.6791 was conceptually feasible. The applicant submitted additional materials on September 15, 2020, in a response to the appeal, which included the following statement: “Runoff from all impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, driveways, and roofs shall be directed either to the proposed detention pond or the proposed infiltration planter.” To supplement this statement the applicant provided calculations that identify the detention pond and infiltration planter as separate basins with additional details about each. For ease of reference, these materials are provided in Attachment E. Public Works staff, who review these detailed reports, provided a Memorandum, prepared by Scott Gillespie, PE on September 17, 2020 (see Attachment F). The Memorandum addresses issues raised by the appellant, materials submitted by the applicant, and provides additional evaluation and findings related to EC 9.6791. The Memorandum notes that the Planning Director’s decision established two conditions of approval which required the applicant to add a site plan note and provide infiltration tests prior to final subdivision approval. The Memorandum concludes that with the materials provided on September 15, 2020 the applicant has provided sufficient information to satisfy EC 9.6791(3) without the need for those conditions as initially provided in the Planning Director’s decision (see page 4 of Attachment F). Staff reviewed the additional materials provided by the applicant and the Memorandum from Public Works staff and agrees with the conclusion that the conditions of approval provided by the Planning Director are no longer necessary. This is due to the additional analysis from Public Works staff, based on the applicant’s additional evidence, that directly addresses EC 9.6791 and can be used to conclude that the stormwater facilities have been appropriately designed based on the City’s adopted plans and policies. Based on the available evidence and arguments, staff recommends that the Hearings Official modify the Planning Director’s decision to remove Conditions #8 and #9 due to new evidence which makes the conditions unnecessary. Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 3 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 3 of 67 Appeal Issue #2: EC 9.6792 Stormwater Quality The appellant specifically calls out EC 9.6792(3)(f) stating that they do not believe the grade changes, which they assert will reverse the natural drainage and create impervious surfaces on the entire site, are necessary to develop this site and do not comply with this standard. The argument appears to focus on an assertion that grade changes, creating impervious surfaces, and reversal of existing drainage patterns are occurring inconsistently with the Stormwater Management Manual. For reference, the language of EC 9.6792(3)(f) is provided below in bolded text: EC 9.6792(3)(f) All stormwater quality facilities shall be sited, designed and constructed according to the water quality provisions and the facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual. As noted above, the attached Memorandum from Public Works staff provides additional analysis and discussion of stormwater standards. In response to EC 9.6791, Public Works staff confirms that detention ponds and infiltration planters are both approved flood control facilities that satisfy approved plans, policies, and standards for infiltration facilities. The River Road-Santa Clara Basin Master plan calls for on-site infiltration facilities to be used where possible. This is due to high infiltration rates, flat terrain, and lack of regional stormwater conveyances. The applicant has provided infiltration testing results for the locations of both proposed facilities, which indicated very high infiltration rates. All impervious surfaces will be directed to the proposed flood control facilities, and calculations demonstrating that the facilities have been adequately sized have been submitted to the City. The above standard requires that stormwater quality facilities be designed and constructed according to the Stormwater Management Manual. As discussed, the applicant is proposing facilities that are consistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies, which include the Stormwater Management Manual. It is unclear to staff which facility has been designed in a way that is inconsistent with EC 9.6792(3)(f), or in what manner, based on the appeal statement. Based on the available evidence and arguments, staff recommends that the Hearings Official deny this assertion of error. Appeal Issue #3: EC 9.8520(5) – Grading The appellant states: “We are also appealing the decision for ST 20-2 out of concern the Planning Directors’ decision is inconsistent with the applicable criteria of EC 9.8520(5).” See page 5 of the appeal. The text of EC 9.8520(5) is provided below in bolded text for reference: EC 9.8520(5): There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. The Planning Director provided findings on page 19 of the decision which noted a topographical study done by Roberts Surveying. The study concluded that there were not any portions of the site that exceed 20% slope. The Planning Director also provided a discussion of comments made during the initial public comment period by opponents of the project, on page 2 of the decision. At that time, the comments posed a question about whether the applicant met EC 9.8520, asserting that by creating slopes greater than 20% the plan failed to meet EC 9.8520. The comments appeared to Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 4 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 4 of 67 be in the form of a question, which the Planning Director responded to on page 2, noting that changing the grade of existing slopes less than 20% is not precluded. The appellant states that the applicant is proposing to create hundreds of feet of impervious surface along the perimeter of the subject property, with slopes in excess of 20%. The appellant states that EC 9.8520(5) does not make a distinction between existing and proposed “portions of the development site” and the definition of “development site” does not further distinguish between existing and proposed “portions.” The appellant concludes that it is reasonable to interpret EC 9.8520(5) as being written to prevent grading on existing slopes, and also to discourage the creation of steep perimeter slopes. Staff respectfully disagrees with the appellant’s assertion that EC 9.8520(5) applies to future grades created on a proposed building site. Approval criteria for subdivisions in the Eugene Code generally address future infrastructure, existing site conditions, and standards based on existing zoning requirements. EC 9.8520(5) is one of the criteria that requires the consideration of existing conditions. The language of EC 9.8520(5) speaks to proposed grading on the development site, prohibiting grading for any areas that meet or exceed 20% slope (emphasis added). The appellant’s assertion that EC 9.8520(5) must be read to consider future changes to the site and prohibit any new slopes of 20% appears to be a reach to regulation of the site that the City does not have in this instance. If read as the appellant would like, EC 9.8520(5) would require an applicant to ask the City any time any grading occurred on the site, and each time, the applicant would have to ensure that a slope of 20% was not being created anywhere on site. Beyond being a stretch to interpret the criterion in such a way, the criterion in question applies only to applications filed under the Needed Housing approval criteria. The importance of this fact is that the State has mandated that approval criteria for applications filed as needed housing must be both clear and objective, and a reading to interpret EC 9.8520(5) in any other way would be inconsistent with this requirement under State law. It is also noted that the appellant asserts that fill added to the site would create hundreds of feet of impervious surface. Impervious surfaces are defined by the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual on page 1-8 as follows: Impervious Surface/Area: Any surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from conditions pre-existing to development. Types of impervious surface include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt and concrete parking lots, driveways, roads, sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas. Note: Slatted decks are considered pervious. Gravel surfaces are considered pervious unless they cover impervious surfaces or are compacted to a degree that causes their runoff coefficient to exceed 0.8. The above definition does not include types of fill material other than gravel (i.e. soil), moreover, the applicant provided additional materials stating that they are not proposing to use any impervious surface for areas of fill (see Attachment E). Additionally, Public Works staff concurs with the applicant that the proposed fill is not impervious surface (see page 4 of Attachment F). While staff understands that the above definition is not limiting (the examples listed are not exhaustive), and could perhaps include fill that is highly compacted, there is no evidence to Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 5 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 5 of 67 indicate that the proposed fill would create an impervious surface in this instance. Based on the available information it is unclear to staff how the proposed fill could be considered an impervious surface. Based on the available evidence and arguments, staff recommends that the Hearings Official deny this assertion of error. RECOMMENDATION Based on the available information to date, staff recommends that the Planning Director’s decision be affirmed and modified to remove Conditions of Approval #8 and #9. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Tentative Subdivision Plan C. Planning Director’s Decision D. Appeal Materials E. Written Testimony received between September 9, 2020 and September 23, 2020 F. Memorandum from Public Works Staff 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 may also be available on the City’s website as a courtesy, at: https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=ST-20-0002 To take preventative measures for community members and staff safety against the spread of COVID-19, please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, about alternatives for reviewing record materials. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, by phone at: 541-682-5485 or via email at ASullivan@eugene-or.gov Howard Meadows Appeal (ST 20-2) Page 6 of 6 Hearings Official Agenda Page 6 of 67  Vicinity Map Howard Meadows (ST 20-2) Attachment A MAXWELL RD ELM DR DALTON DR ROSEWOOD AVE LINWOOD ST GROVE ST HOWARD AVE LAKE DR OAK DR Subject Property Caution: This map is based on Eugene UGB imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. ^ Created on 9/23/2020 by City of Eugene Planning Division Hearings Official Agenda Page 7 Ft 0 40 80 160 of 67 N  Attachment B Hearings Official Agenda Page 8 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 9 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 10 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 11 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 12 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 13 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 14 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 15 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 16 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 17 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 18 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 19 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 20 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 21 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 22 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 23 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 24 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 25 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 26 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 27 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 28 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 29 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 30 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 31 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 32 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 33 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 34 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 35 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 36 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 37 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 38 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 39 of 67  Attachment C Hearings Official Agenda Page 40 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 41 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 42 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 43 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 44 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 45 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 46 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 47 of 67  Attachment D To: City of Eugene Planning Department Attn: Althea Sullivan From: River Road Community Organization Re: Appeal of Planning Director Decision of ST 20-002 Date: August 31, 2020 Greetings: At a specially scheduled August 30th, 2020 special meeting of the River Road Community Organization Executive Board the following motion was made, seconded and approved by a 8-0-0 vote: I move that RRCO joins in the appeal of the Planning Director’s decision on ST 20-002 for the purposes of assisting neighbors in exercising their goal one citizen involvement right should they decide to appeal the Planning Director’s decision. It is our understanding that this vote by the River Road Community Organization provides the opportunity for individuals who are Neighborhood Association members to benefit from the reduced or waived application fee as provided by City of Eugene Administrative Order 53-05- 08F (or its successor). The vote was taken at this meeting in anticipation that this is the only opportunity for the Neighborhood Association Executive Board to meet and vote on this issue prior to the Appeal Deadline. This decision doesn’t reflect an opinion on the merits of the Planning Director’s deliberation. Sincerely, /s/ Co-Chairs Jon Belcher and Clare Strawn on behalf of River Road Community Organization Hearings Official Agenda Page 48 of 67  Attachment D APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION This appeal form applies to appeals of interpretation of this Land Use Code made according to EC 9.0040(1) and to appeals to all Type II land use applications. The appeal of the Planning Director’s decision provides for a review of an administrative decision by a higher review authority specified in this Land Use Code. The Planning Director’s decision may be affirmed, reversed, or modified. X City File Name: Howard Meadow Tentative Subdivision (can’t edit box above) City File Number: ST 20-002 Date of Planning Director Decision: August 8, 2020 Date Appeal Filed: August 31, 2020 (This date must be within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Director’s decision.) Attach a written appeal statement. The appeal statement shall include a written statement of issues on appeal and be limited to the issues raised in the appeal. The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the Planning Director’s decision is inconsistent with applicable criteria. Please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information center, 99 West 10th avenue, 541‐682‐5377, for further information on the appeal process. A filing fee must accompany an appeal of a Planning Director decision, with some exceptions for neighborhood groups. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the required fee or check on the web at: www.eugeneplanning.org Hearings Official Agenda Page 49 of 67 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Planning & Development Updated: October, 2012 Planning Division Attachment D 99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541.682.5377 * F 541.685.5572 Page 1 of 2 Acknowledgment I (we), the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that I (we) have read the above appeal form, understand the requirements for filing an appeal of a planning director decision, and state that the information supplied is as complete and detailed as is currently possible, to the best of my (our) knowledge. APPELLANT: Name (print): Jonathan Belcher Phone: 541-343-6695 (co-chair) Company/Organization: River Road Community Organization Address: 1243 Rome Lane City/State/Zip: Eugene< Or 97404 Signature: /s/ Jonathan H. Belcher APPELLANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Name (print): Company/Organization: Address: City/State/Zip: E‐mail (if applicable): Phone: Fax: Signature: IF this appeal is being filed by the affected recognized neighborhood association, complete the following: Name of Association: River Road Community Organization Hearings Official Agenda Page 50 of 67  www.eugene-or.gov/planning Attachment D Planning & Development Updated: October, 2012 Planning Division 99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 P 541.682.5377 * F 541.685.5572 Page 2 of 2 Hearings Official Agenda Page 51 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 52 of 67  Attachment D Hearings Official Agenda Page 53 of 67  Attachment E APPEAL RESPONSES APPLICANT: Jake Burnham PHONE: (541) 554-7358 SURVEYOR: Roberts Surveying Inc. PHONE: (541) 345-1112 CIVIL ENGINEER: The Favreau Group PHONE: (541) 683-7048 DATE: September 15, 2020 MAP: 17-04-14-42, Tax Lot 6500 SITE ADDRESS: 625 Howard Ave., Eugene, Oregon The proposed tentative map shows fill on the site up to approximately three feet and to be sloped down to the existing ground along the property line. Runoff from all impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, driveways and roofs shall be directed either to the proposed detention pond or the proposed infiltration planter. The soil on the proposed slope is pervious, not impervious. The appellant has expressed some concern with the runoff from the proposed perimeter slopes. The runoff from the pervious perimeter slopes will be negligible. It is an inherent fact of infill projects that the proposed perimeter elevations need to transition to the existing elevations. The City allows sloped transitions to join those existing elevations. EC 9.8520(5) states” There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope.” This part of the code is referencing the existing ground and was intended for the steeper areas of Eugene. The City has set precedent and always interpreted the 20% as being the existing ground. Hearings Official Agenda Page 54 of 67  Attachment E BURNHAM PLACE DRAINAGE STUDY September 15, 2020 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is identified on County Assessor’s Maps as 17-04-14-42 Tax Lot 6500. It is located on the north side of Howard Ave., at Lake Dr. The site is an open field with a house and garage and consists of about 1.85 acres. EXISTING HYDROLOGY The site is relatively flat and portions of the site drain to the north and portions to the south. PROPOSED HYDROLOGY The proposed drainage is divided into two basins, Basin A and Basin B. Basin A The proposed drainage system for Basin A will consist of piping the proposed drainage to a proposed detention pond on the east side of the proposed Lake Dr. extension. All impervious surfaces in Basin A will be directed to the proposed detention pond. An infiltration test was performed at the location of the proposed pond. Bar run material was encountered and provided an infiltration rate in excess of 20” per hour. The detention pond was sized to infiltrate the entire 10-year storm event. For larger events, an overflow will be installed and connected to the existing storm drain in Howard Avenue. Basin B Basin B is a small 3,250 square foot area of Rosewood Ave. and will be treated and provide destination with a roadside infiltration planter, All impervious surfaces in Basin B will be directed to the proposed infiltration planter. The required size of the infiltration planter is 175 square feet, with 190 square feet provided. An infiltration test was performed at the proposed location of the infiltration planter and a bar run was encountered at 5 – 7 feet deep. The hole did not hold any water after 20 minute of trying to fill it. The infiltration planter will infiltrate at the design rate of 2.5” per hour. Attached are the calculations. Attached are the following: 1. Detention Pond Calculations 2. Hydrology Map 3. Stormwater Surface Facility Sizing CONCLUSION Based on my calculations and the proposed drainage system is sized properly and will provide the necessary flow control. 1 Hearings Official Agenda Page 55 of 67  Attachment E DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS FOR BURNHAM POND DRAINAGE AREA = 77,972 SQ. FT. = 1.790 ACRES AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C) = 0.65 BOTTOM LENGTH OF POND = 30 FEET BOTTOM WIDTH OF POND = 26 FEET SIDE SLOPES = 3 FEET HORIZONTAL TO 1 FOOT VERTICAL VOID RATIO = 100% AVERAGE PERMEABILITY OF SOIL = 6.00 INCHES/HR SURFACE AREA OF BOTTOM = 780 SQ. FT. OUTFLOW CAPACITY OF POND = 390.0 CU. FT./HR = 48.62 GALLONS PER MINUTE MAXIMUM STORAGE AT OVERFLOW = 4,338.00 CU. FT. OF WATER POND VOLUME = 86.7 CUBIC YARDS 10 YEAR TOTAL RECURRENCE RAINFALL TOTAL OUTFLOW DURATION DURATION RAINFALL DURING STORM EVENT FROM STORAGE OF STORM OF STORM INTENSITY STORM RUNOFF POND REQUIRED POND IN MINUTES IN HOURS IN/HR INCHES CU. FT. CU. FT. CU. FT. SIZING 5 0.08 3.10 0.26 1,091 48 1,043 OK 10 0.17 2.10 0.35 1,478 96 1,382 OK 15 0.25 1.65 0.41 1,742 148 1,594 OK 20 0.33 1.40 0.47 1,971 205 1,766 OK 30 0.50 1.10 0.55 2,323 328 1,995 OK 60 1.00 0.70 0.70 2,956 727 2,229 OK 120 2.00 0.50 1.00 4,223 1,587 2,637 OK 180 3.00 0.44 1.32 5,575 2,575 3,000 OK 240 4.00 0.41 1.64 6,927 3,701 3,226 OK 360 6.00 0.36 2.16 9,123 6,098 3,025 OK 480 8.00 0.32 2.56 10,812 8,644 2,168 OK 600 10.00 0.28 2.80 11,826 11,344 482 OK 720 12.00 0.25 3.00 12,670 13,890 - OK 900 15.00 0.21 3.15 13,304 17,710 - OK 1080 18.00 0.20 3.60 15,205 21,760 - OK 1260 21.00 0.19 3.99 16,852 26,047 - OK 1440 24.00 0.18 4.32 18,245 30,579 - OK Hearings Official Agenda Page 56 of 67  Attachment E POND STAGE STORAGE & STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE Length = 30.0 Width = 26.0 Side Slope = 3.0 Depth Area Volume Outflow 0.10 813.96 80 406.98 0.20 848.64 163 424.32 0.30 884.04 250 442.02 0.40 920.16 340 460.08 0.50 957.00 434 478.50 0.75 1,052.25 687 526.13 1.00 1,152.00 966 576.00 1.25 1,256.25 1,273 628.13 1.50 1,365.00 1,609 682.50 1.75 1,478.25 1,976 739.13 2.00 1,596.00 2,376 798.00 2.25 1,718.25 2,811 859.13 2.50 1,845.00 3,281 922.50 2.75 1,976.25 3,790 988.13 3.00 2,112.00 4,338 1,056.00 3.25 2,252.25 4,927 1,126.13 3.50 2,397.00 5,560 1,198.50 3.75 2,546.25 6,237 1,273.13 4.00 2,700.00 6,960 1,350.00 4.25 2,858.25 7,731 1,429.13 4.50 3,021.00 8,552 1,510.50 4.75 3,188.25 9,425 1,594.13 5.00 3,360.00 10,350 1,680.00 5.25 3,536.25 11,330 1,768.13 5.50 3,717.00 12,367 1,858.50 5.75 3,902.25 13,461 1,951.13 6.00 4,092.00 14,616 2,046.00 6.25 4,286.25 15,832 2,143.13 6.50 4,485.00 17,111 2,242.50 6.75 4,688.25 18,455 2,344.13 7.00 4,896.00 19,866 2,448.00 Hearings Official Agenda Page 57 of 67  Attachment E Hearings Official Agenda Page 58 of 67  Attachment E Stormwater Surface Filtration/Infiltration Facility Sizing Spreadsheet 24 Hour Storm, NRCS Type 1A Rainfall Distribution City of Eugene Version 2.1 Project Information Project Name: Howard Meadows Date: 4/17/2020 Project Address: Rosewood Permit Number: [Permit #] Eugene, OR [Zip Code] Catchment ID: Rosewood Ave. Designer: Anthony J. Favreau Company: The Favreau Group Instructions: 1. Complete this form for each drainage catchment in the project site that is to be sized per the Presumptive Approach. 2. Provide a distinctive Catchment ID for each facility coordinated with the site basin map to correlate the appropriate calculations with the facility. 3. The maximum drainage catchment to be modeled per the Presumptive Approach is 1 acre (43,560 SF) 4.For infiltration facilities in Class A or B soils where no infiltration testing has been perfromed use an infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr. For all facilities use a maximum soil infiltration rate of 2.5 in/hr for topsoil/growing medium. Design Requirements: Choose "Yes" from the dropdown boxes below next to the design standards requirements for this facility. Pollution Reduction (PR) Yes Flow Control (FC) Yes Destination (DT) Yes *An infiltration facility must be chosen as the facility type to meet destination requirements Site Data-Post Development Total Square Footage Impervious Area= 1875 sqft Total Square Footage Pervious Area= 1375 sqft Impervious Area CN= 98 Pervious Area CN= 85 Total Square Footage of Drainage Area= 3250 sft Time of Concentration Post Development= 5 min Weighted Average CN= 93 Site Data-Pre Development (Data in this section is only used if Flow Control is required) Pre-Development CN= 85 Time of Concentration Pre-Development= 10 min Soil Data Tested Soil Infiltration Rate= 5 in/hr (See Note 4) Destination Design= 2.5 in/hr Design Soil Infiltration Rate= 2.5 in/hr Soil Infiltration Rate Design Storms Used For Calculations 24-hour Requirement Rainfall Depth Design Storm Pollution Reduction 1.4 inches Water Quality Flow Control 3.6 inches Flood Control Destination 3.6 inches Flood Control Facility Data Facility Type= Infiltration Stormwater Planter Facility Surface Area= 175 sqft Surface Width= 5 ft Facility Surface Perimeter= 80 ft Surface Length= 35 ft Facility Bottom Area= 175 sqft Facility Side Slopes= 0 to 1 Facility Bottom Perimeter= 80 ft Max. Ponding Depth in Stormwater Facility= 12 in Basin Volume= 175.0 cf Depth of Growing Medium (Soil)= 4 in Ratio of Facility Area to Impervious Area= 0.054 4/17/2020-5:54 PM Hearings Official Agenda Page 59 of 67 1  Attachment E Pollution Reduction-Calculation Results Peak Flow Rate to Stormwater Facility = 0.014 cfs Peak Facility Overflow Rate= 0.000 cfs Total Runoff Volume to Stormwater Facility = 202 cf Total Overflow Volume= 0 cf Max. Depth of Stormwater in Facility= 0.3 in Drawdown Time= 0.2 hours Yes Facility Sizing Meets Pollution Reduction Standards? YES Meets Requirement of No Facility Flooding? YES Meets Requirement for Maximum of 18 Hour Drawdown Time? Flow Control-Calculation Results Peak Flow Rate to Stormwater Facility = 0.060 cfs Peak Facility Overflow Rate= 0.000 cfs Total Runoff Volume to Stormwater Facility = 752 cf Total Overflow Volume= 0 cf Peak Off-Site Flow Rate Max. Depth of Stormwater in Facility= 10.6 in Filtration Facility Underdrain= N\A cfs Drawdown Time= 0.8 hours Pre-Development Runoff Data Peak Flow Rate = 0.039 cfs Total Runoff Volume = 570 cf Yes Facility Sizing Meets Flow Control Standards? YES Meets Requirement for Post Development offsite flow less or equal to Pre-Development Flow? YES Meets Requirement for Maximum of 18 Hour Drawdown Time? Destination-Calculation Results Peak Flow Rate to Stormwater Facility = 0.060 cfs Peak Facility Overflow Rate= 0.000 cfs Total Runoff Volume to Stormwater Facility = 752 cf Total Overflow Volume= 0 cf Max. Depth of Stormwater in Facility= 10.6 in Drawdown Time= 0.8 hours Yes Facility Sizing Meets Destination Standards? YES Meets Requirement of No Facility Flooding? YES Meets Requirement for Maximum of 30 hour Drawdown Time? 4/17/2020-5:54 PM Hearings Official Agenda Page 60 of 67 2  Attachment E Althea Sullivan September 17, 2020 Assistant Planner Official Statement re: Howard Meadows Tentative Subdivision (ST 20-002) Dear Ms. Sullivan, As homeowners who reside on the Northeast perimeter of the subject property, we submit the following testimony with regard to the appeal filed for ST20-002. The applicant’s proposal to elevate the corner of the property adjacent to Rosewood, creating steep embankments on that corner of the site, could have a calamitous impact on our home and property, especially given the engineered fill he proposes to use and the fact that there would be little to no on-site storm water infiltration in those areas and runoff to the adjacent properties, most notably, our own. Not only will the embankments increase the runoff onto our property and possibly cause flooding to our home, but we’re not looking forward to the loss of privacy created by a two-story home on an impractical, elevated embankment looming over our backyard. Since no measures were proposed and little to no consideration given to managing the storm water runoff from these proposed embank- ments, and IF these embankments are somehow going to be allowed, we need to know now that there is a plan in place for keeping the runoff from flowing onto our property. We attended neighborhood meetings with the builder, who did not show much evidence of his concern for storm water runoff issues when they were raised. In fact, at one meeting, he even suggested that the development would actually improve drainage for neighbors to the west of the development, which didn’t make any sense to us at the time. On a final note, the neighborhood appeal regarding issues with the proposed development was not filed frivolously. Neighbors, myself included, made many attempts to collaborate with the builder on preserving the integrity and safety of the neighborhood surrounding Hearings Official Agenda Page 61 of 67  Attachment E the subject property. We believe that storm water issues were overlooked and the application was rushed through, endangering the surrounding neighborhood properties. We believe that we needed to file an appeal to have a third party look at these issues objectively. Thank you for the opportunity to hear our concerns, Gail and Mark Rhamy 600 Rosewood Avenue Hearings Official Agenda Page 62 of 67  Attachment F Memorandum Date: September 22, 2020 To: Althea Sullivan From: Scott Gillespie, PE Subject: ST-20-2 Howard Meadows Appeal The following comments are a preliminary evaluation of the issues on appeal dated August 31, 2020. The applicant has also submitted additional information in response to the issues on appeal. Comments also include an evaluation of all information on record, informational items and amended recommendations for compliance with applicable approval criteria. These comments are intended for review by Planning Division staff, for incorporation into the City’s written statement to the Hearings Official. They do not represent a final determination of compliance with the applicable approval standards and criteria. It is acknowledged that these comments are subject to review and revision by Planning Division staff. Summary of Appeal The primary issue on appeal is conformance with criteria in Eugene Code section 9.6791 and two bulleted conditions on page 17 of the Planning Director’s decision. The appeal contends the proposed engineered fill will create embankments along the north, west and east property lines. Specifically, how no consideration is given for how stormwater runoff will be managed. The appeal also contends the proposed engineered fill embankments meet the definition of impervious surface and will generate massive amounts of stormwater runoff during rain events – especially during prolonged events. Emphasis was also placed upon how stormwater will be managed must be made clear prior to subdivision approval. The appellant contends the Planning Director did not take the runoff from those proposed embankments into enough consideration. The appeal states the City requires the applicant to show calculations and facilities for all impervious surfaces on the site – prior to subdivision approval. That appeal states there is no logical reason the impervious embankments should be treated any differently. Volume and flow calculation and a plan to deal with the runoff form those embankments are needed. The appeal states the dragline study did not include the impervious surface of the embankments or the runoff created by them. The appeal also cites the City of Eugene’s Stormwater Management Manual, specifically the provision to direct all impervious surfaces to an approved discharge point. The appellant has also suggested an amended condition of approval. The appellant has also provided concerns about the proposed infiltration planter. The appeal also includes a copy of the proposed site plan with arrows indicating the direction of flows that are believed to be unaccounted for. The appellant asserts the infiltration planter is a possible destination for the northern and eastern portions of the embankments and the description needs to be changed to reflect that. They are requesting that calculation for the infiltration planter consider and include runoff from the northern and eastern embankments and that the description needs to be changed to reflect that. The appeal asserts the embankments pose a serious threat to adjacent properties and flood control measures must be identified. 1 Hearings Official Agenda Page 63 of 67  Attachment F Planning Director’s Decision and Conditions of Approval The applicant provided a tentative subdivision plan and multiple revisions to the hydrology study prior to the Planning Director’s decision. Hydrology is the term used to describe the engineering means and methods for estimating stormwater runoff. The applicant’s written statement briefly addressed the criteria in 9.6791 and referred to the hydrology study for detail. The hydrologic analysis provided information in a technical engineering format that was difficult for review staff to interpret. Multiple revisions to the hydrologic study coupled with a lack of planning level narrative on impervious areas created minor uncertainty. However, the final tentative subdivision map illustrated flood control facilities consistent with the approval criteria EC 9.6791(3) (a), (b) and (c). Considering all information available at the closing of the public record, the inconsistencies in contributing impervious area and lack of infiltration information for the “infiltration planter” warranted the two conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Director to address the standard provided by EC 9.6791. Those conditions are: 9. The following note shall be added to the applicant’s final site plan: “Stormwater will be treated consistent with EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control.” 10. Prior to final subdivision approval, the applicant shall submit infiltration test results that demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6791 and the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual at the location of the proposed infiltration planter. The appeal takes issue with the conditions imposed by the Planning Director in addition to other stated stormwater concerns related to site grading. Current Proposal and Findings of Conformance with EC 9.6791 Flood Control Tentative Subdivision approval criteria (Needed Housing) requires conformance with EC 9.6791 Flood Control. 9.6791 Stormwater – Flood Control (1) Purpose. The purpose of EC 9.6791 is to protect life and property from flood and drainage hazards by maintaining the capacity of the city’s stormwater conveyance system through the establishment of flood control regulations for stormwater runoff. These standards are also intended to ensure that urban stormwater discharged into Junction City Water Control District’s flood control system meets the assigned downstream capacity of the District’s system. The Flood Control standard is intended to protect life and property from flood hazard. It requires flood control facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with plans, policies and standards. It also requires all developments to discharge stormwater runoff to approved flood control facilities or be retained or detained on site. (2) Applicability and Exemptions. (a) Except as provided in EC 9.6791(2)(b), flood control standards apply to all development permit applications and land use applications. The proposed subdivision requires a land use application. The flood control standards apply to this application. (b) The standards in EC 9.6791(3) do not apply to development permit applications where the proposed development will be served by a flood control facility that is a manmade drainage system designed to accommodate stormwater run-off generated by the stormwater basin area Hearings Official Agenda Page 64 of 67  Attachment F The proposed subdivision is not a development permit application. Therefore, the exemption does not apply. (3) Standards. (a) Stormwater flood control facilities shall be designed and constructed according to adopted plans and policies, and in accordance with standards in EC Chapters 6 and 7, and the stormwater flood control provisions and the facility design requirements set forth in the Stormwater Management Manual. (b) Based on the Rational Method flow calculation, stormwater runoff from the development site for the flood control design storm shall be: 1. Discharged into existing stormwater flood control facilities that, considering all developments that have received tentative or final plan approval as of the date the applicant submits a complete application, have the capacity to handle the stormwater runoff; or 2. Retained or detained onsite; or 3. Discharged into a new stormwater flood control facility constructed by the applicant. (c) For development proposed within the area shown on Map 9.6791(3)(c) Special Stormwater Flood Control Area Map, the post-development peak flow rate shall not exceed the pre- development peak flow rate for the applicable flood control design storm unless the applicant submits documentation from Junction City Water Control District that the proposed flow rate is acceptable. The applicant has provided additional supplemental information including a revised Hydrology Study dated September 15, 2020. The tentative subdivision map under evaluation is dated April 20, 2020. The developer is proposing to construct two new flood control facilities with the subdivision. The subdivision consists of two distinct drainage basins that contribute stormwater runoff directly to corresponding flood control facilities. Basin A consists of approximately 1.79 acres and will be piped directly to a pond proposed on Lot A located in the SE corner of the property. Basin B consists of approximately 0.74 acres and directly drains to an infiltration planter located roadside in the NE corner of the property. Detention ponds and infiltration planters are both approved flood control facilities that satisfy approved plans, policies and standards for infiltration facilities. The River Road Santa Clara Basin Maser plan calls for on-site infiltration facilities to be used where possible. This is due to high infiltration rates, flat terrain and lack of regional stormwater conveyances. The applicant has provided infiltration testing results for both facility locations. Tested infiltration rates are very high. High infiltration rates are indicative of the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. All impervious surfaces will be directed to the proposed flood control facilities. Stormwater calculations using appropriate engineering methods were provided that meet City standards and account for all planned impervious surfaces. The calculations verify adequate facility sizing and confirm the ability to detain and infiltrate the flood control deign storm on site. The project will not discharge runoff into existing stormwater flood control facilities, therefore the standard in EC 9.6791(3)(1) does not apply. Runoff will be fully retained on site and new flood control facilities will be constructed by the applicant, therefore the standards in EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2) and (3) have been met. The project is not within the area shown on Map 9.6791(3)(c), therefore this standard does not apply. (4) Underground Injection Control Systems. Stormwater runoff discharged in underground systems is also regulated through the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XII) and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 340, Section 044. Hearings Official Agenda Page 65 of 67  Attachment F The applicant is not proposing any Underground Injection Control Systems as defined by US code or Oregon Administrative rule, therefore this standard does not apply. It is important to note the applicant has provided sufficient information to satisfy the standards in EC 9.6791(3) without exception or condition. There are also no remaining concerns about conformance with EC 9.6791 during subsequent development (building permits and public improvements) or the in- situ infiltration rates. The standards in EC 9.6791 will be applied to future site development at the time of building permit review as required by the Eugene Code. Public Works staff recommends the two stormwater conditions on page 17 of the Planning Director’s decision be rescinded. Discussion of Issues on Appeal It is common practice to grade or place earthen fill on projects that are notably flat to begin with. That appears to be case with Howard Meadows. The Tentative Subdivision plan shows finished grade contours indicating that fill will be placed on the property. This will create fill slopes along the perimeter of the project consistent with what is described in the appeal statement. The majority of the issues on appeal focus on the potential interlot stormwater impacts created by these areas. It is important to note that staff can only regulate and make requirements for which we have the authority. The current hydrology report states that all stormwater runoff from all impervious surfaces in both drainage basins will be directed to the proposed respective flood control facilities. The basin boundaries accurately cover improvements to be made with the subdivision (e.g. public streets & paths) and improvements to be made with subsequent building permit applications (e.g. homes, driveways and walks). This is consistent with plans, policies and adopted design standards. The appeal statement correctly noted that adopted standards (Stormwater Management Manual) requires that runoff from all impervious surfaces be directed to approved points of discharge. The Stormwater Management Manual also provides the following definitions: Development Footprint: The new or redeveloped area covered by buildings or other roof structures and other impervious surface areas, such as roads, parking lots, and sidewalks. Impervious Surface/Area: Any surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from conditions pre-existing to development. Types of impervious surface include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt and concrete parking lots, driveways, roads, sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas. Note: Slatted decks are considered pervious. Gravel surfaces are considered pervious unless they cover impervious surfaces or are compacted to a degree that causes their runoff coefficient to exceed 0.8. The City’s stormwater basin master plans utilize a similar definition of impervious surface as “hard surfaces such as lands covered by hard surfaces such as rooftops, roads, and parking lots and allow little or no infiltration of water.” The stormwater basin master plans are the City’s adopted flood control plan and policy. Earthen fills are not considered impervious surfaces. Staff respectfully disagrees with the appellants assertion that the proposed embankments are impervious surfaces. As such, the slopes are not required to be factored into the runoff calculations and not subject to the standards in EC 9.6791. Site grading is not something that is reviewed during the Tentative Subdivision phase of a project because there is no approval criteria that regulates it’s location, depth or orientation. Earthen fills that require permits are reviewed against the building codes during the site development (building permit) phase of the project. Fills created by public improvements will be reviewed at the time of the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permit process. It is also important to note that Public Improvement Standards also reference the Stormwater Management Manual for direction on these matters. Public improvements also utilize the land use review and decision as the scope of the required stormwater study. The stormwater related impacts of the proposed earthen fill slopes falls into the realm of interlot drainage. The overwhelming majority of property in Oregon has some degree of interlot drainage. Hearings Official Agenda Page 66 of 67  Attachment F Oregon drainage law, which originates from common law or case law, has developed without legislative action, and it is embodied in the decisions of the courts. There are no Oregon Revised Statutes or City ordinances pertaining to drainage law. As such, interlot drainage remains a civil matter. While the City of Eugene will not insert itself into civil matters, staff notes the fill slopes are very small, will remain on the applicant’s property and are not proposed to be covered with an impervious surface. Most of the River Road Santa Clara area developed without formal drainage controls. This was possible due to the high natural infiltration rates mentioned earlier. It is our experience that small slopes such as these create a negligible increase in stormwater runoff. Hearings Official Agenda Page 67 of 67