HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecisionDECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ADJUSTMENT REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Application File Name (Number):
Santa Clara Transit Station PUD (PDT 19-1/ ARA 19-1)
Applicant's Request:
Tentative Planned Unit Development for a new transit station with Adjustment Review.
Subject Property/Location:
Located on the east side of River Road, north of Green Lane and south of Hunsaker Lane.
Assessor's Map: 17-04-11-44 Tax Lots 200, 300, 400, 500, 501, 602, and 800.
Relevant Dates:
Application submitted on February 12, 2019; supplemental materials submitted on April 12,
2019; application deemed complete on May 1, 2019; public hearing held on June 19, 2019.
Applicant's Representative:
Colin McArthur of Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning.
Lead City Staff:
Dan Halverson, Senior Planner, Eugene Planning Division.
Summary of the Public Hearing
The Hearings Official held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2019. The
Hearings Official stated he had no conflicts of interests, was not biased, and had no ex pane
communications to disclose. No person objected to the Hearings Official conducting the
hearing. Dan Halvorson (Halvorson), Senior Planner, and Alissa Hansen, Principal Planner,
were present for the hearing. Halvorson presented the staff report, recommending approval
of the application. Colin McArthur and the applicant's other representatives stated that they
agreed with the staff report. A number of opponents testified in opposition to the application.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Hearings Official closed the record.
Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 1
FACTS
The property is 7.8 acres, is zoned C-2 Community Commercial with SR Site Review and
PD Planned Unit Development overlays, and is located on the east side of River Road, north of
Green Lane and south of Hunsaker Lane. The property is roughly square in shape with a small
square cut out from the southwest corner where a beauty shop is located. The property is the site
of the former Santa Clara Elementary School. Although the entire site consists of 11 tax lots, the
proposed planned unit development (PUD) is for the seven tax lots on the southern portion of the
site comprising 2.7 acres. The remainder of the site is planned to be develop in a later phase. River
Road is major arterial, while Hunsaker Lane is a major collector and Green Lane is a local street.
Properties to the east are developed with single family and duplex residential homes. Properties to
the south across Green Lane are commercial uses and single family residences. Properties to the
north across Hunsaker Lane are primarily single family residences. River Road is to the west. Lane
Transit District (LTD) proposes to build a new transit station to replace the one located on River
Road by the Beltline Highway. The transit station would include a bus parking and shelter area on
the northern portion of the property, a bus driver relief building on the southern portion of the
property, and a park and ride parking area on the eastern portion of the property. Buses would
enter the facility primarily through a dedicated bus lane on River Road for buses coming from the
south. Buses coming from the north (which are much fewer) would enter the facility from Green
Lane. Commuters would access the park and ride from a proposed new connector road on the
eastern boundary of the property from Green Lane. The proposed connector road would eventually
be extended to Hunsaker Lane to the north when the remainder of the property is developed.
ANALYSIS
The staff report does a very thorough job of explaining how all of the applicable approval
criteria are satisfied. Opponents do not challenge most of if not all of the findings in the staff report.
It would be a waste of the City's money to review and repeat all of the unchallenged findings in
the staff report. I have reviewed the staff report and I agree with those findings. Therefore, I adopt
and incorporate the staff report in this decision, except as further discussed.
Opponents raised a number of concerns with the proposed development. None of the
opponents, however, identified, let alone directed their testimony, to any actual approval criteria.
Generally, I try to relate opponents' arguments to specific approval criteria, even when opponents
do not identify any approval criteria, when it is at least relatively clear which approval criteria
Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 2
those arguments apply to. In the present case, most of the opponents' arguments are difficult if not
impossible to relate to any specific approval criteria. Nonetheless, I will do my best to respond to
opponents' arguments.
Kate Perle and Tim Foelker, who are part of the Santa Clara Community Organization,
while generally in favor of the proposed development, would prefer that there not be a fence along
the northern boundary of the currently proposed development.' They would prefer not to have a
fence because they believe it would separate the transit station from the surrounding area. I do not
see that this implicates any of the applicable approval criteria.' Furthermore, the applicant
explained that the proposed fence is designed to separate the area proposed for development from
the area designated for future development. As the site plans demonstrates there are anticipated
connections between the area currently proposed for development and the remainder of the site.
The applicant also stated that the fence would likely be removed upon development of the
remainder of the property. In any event, the proposed fence does not provide a basis to deny the
application.
Craig Marshall (Marshall) lives across Green Lane from the proposed transit station.
Initially, Marshall is concerned about mosquitos intensifying in the drainage proposed to be
located along Green Lane. Although Marshall does not explain what if any approval criterion this
applies to, the applicant explained that the drainage area is an infiltration system that would not
result in standing water that would lead to increased mosquitos. Marshall also argues that he does
want the proposed connector road to be located near his house. While I can understand why
Marshall would prefer not to have the proposed connector street located near his house, Marshall
does not cite any approval criterion that the proposed connector street would violate. Eugene Code
(EC) 7.420 provides the approval criteria for access connections, and the staff report thoroughly
explains why those criteria are satisfied. Marshall does not identify, let alone challenge those
findings. I agree with the staff report that the proposed connector street meets all applicable
approval criteria.
1 The proposed fence would run through the middle of the property, separating the southern portion that is proposed
for development from the northern portion which would be developed at a later date.
2 Although the community organization cites provisions from the Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, I do not see how
those provisions pertain to the proposed fence. To be fair, it is not clear that the community organization is citing those
provisions in regards to the proposed fence.
Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 3
John Hagan (Hagan) lives on Hunsaker Lane to the north of the property. Initially, Hagan
is concerned that the proposed street trees will damage sidewalks. The required street trees are
limited to trees approved by the City as being appropriate for areas near streets and sidewalks.
Hagan also does not want the proposed connector road to eventually connect to Hunsaker Lane.
As with Marshall, I can understand why Hagan would prefer not to have a new road near his house,
but again the proposed connector road complies with all applicable approval criteria.
Virginia Church (Church) operates the beauty shop adjacent to the southwest corner of the
property.' Church is concerned that traffic from the proposed transit station will adversely impact
her business and that commuters will use her property as a bathroom since there are no bathroom
facilities proposed for the site. In particular, Church is concerned that buses will que up and restrict
access to her parking lot for her customers. The applicant prepared a traffic study that demonstrates
that traffic will not be made worse by the proposed transit station. While River Road is a very busy
street, the applicant is proposing to add a traffic light that will improve traffic. The majority of the
buses would enter the transit station from River Road, and therefore would not block the access to
Church's beauty shop on Green Lane. While there would be some buses using Green Lane, even
using a worst case situation there would only be a bus every five or six minutes on Green Lane.
With the proposed new signal, this would not result in customers being unable to access Church's
parking lot. The applicant explained that the proposed transit station is the type of bus stop where
people arrive to catch a specific bus. The proposed transit station is not a central bus station where
numerous buses come in from many different places and people spend extended times waiting for
other buses. The applicant does not provide bathroom facilities at such transit stations - only
central stations. While it is certainly possible that someone might use Church's bushes in
desperation, I do not see that it would be a significant problem or more importantly that it would
violate any applicable approval criteria.
All of the approval criteria are satisfied.'
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Official APPROVES the applications for tentative
PUD approval and for Adjustment Review, with the following conditions of approval.
3 Church's friend, Walter Drews, also made the same arguments as Church.
4 There are no challenges to the Adjustment Review request.
Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Final Site Plans shall include the following note: "A minimum of 11 canopy trees shall
be planted in the L-2 landscape area and the landscape area between the LTD transit station,
including the Park-and-Ride, and the southern property line."
2. Prior to the removal of any street trees, the applicant will obtain the appropriate street tree
removal permit(s) in conformance with EC 6.305.
3. Prior to final site plan approval, a deed for street right-of-way for the proposed connector
street shall be conveyed to the City on a standard City form, submitted to the city for review
and approval prior to recording, and which shall be recorded prior to the final site plan
approval.
4. In conjunction with construction of the new public connector street, a temporary easement
and emergency vehicle turnaround shall be provided.
5. The applicant shall create a 1-foot reserve strip along the northerly margin of the proposed
new street dedication. The reserve strip shall be noted on the final site plan as a 1-foot
Reserve Strip "A" and be conveyed to the City on a standard City form, submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to recording, and which shall be recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
6. Prior to final site plan approval, approval for a street name for the proposed connector street
shall be submitted for review and approval by the regional road naming group.
Fred Wilson
Hearings Official
Dated this 3rd day of July 2019.
Mailed this 5th day of July 2019.
SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 5