The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Comment - received during open record period (closed 11-12-15)To: Hearings Official Ken Helm From: Ross Williamson Re: PDT 15-001, Post-Hearing Submission Date: November 10, 2015 Following are comments directed at four PUD criteria. I also offer a comment on the adjustment application. EC 9.8325(1) "The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes." I understand this PUD application is neither the time nor place to make arguments about the City's housing inventory and whether it complies with the needed housing statute. The argument I raise is whether the applicant meets the first criterion for a PUD approval under the needed housing track. That criterion is in obligation upon the applicant, one that the applicant has the burden of satisfying. Whether or not the City's housing inventory is acknowledged is not at issue. In fact, the criterion makes no mention of the City's housing inventory. The issue is whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposing housing "is needed housing as defined by State statutes." EC 9.8325(1). Applicant does not identify the price range or rent level for the proposed houses. Were applicant to identify those characteristics of the proposed development, applicant would then need to show that those categories of single family dwellings are identified by the City of Eugene as "needed." Applicant does not meet either requirement. ORS 197.303 defines "needed housing" as "housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels...." ORS 197.303(1) (emphasis added). ORS 197.307(4) then provides that criteria applied to needed housing applications must be clear and objective. However, for providing context for the definition of "needed housing", the first three subsections of ORS 197.307 also provide clear guidance. ORS 197.307 provides, in part: "(1) The availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for farmworkers, is a matter of statewide concern. "(2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing. "(3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans Hearings Official Ken Helm November 10, 2015 Page 2 as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need." (Emphasis added.) Thus, in reading the needed housing statutes, before you even arrive at subsection (4) for the clear and objective requirement, you first must read through three subsections that discuss the purpose of the needed housing requirement. And the purpose of the needed housing requirement is tied to the price or rent level of the available housing (e.g., "particular" prices and rents). The applicant wishes to read away the entire purpose of the needed housing statute. The applicant is required to show that its development is needed housing "as defined by state statute." Without a reference to the price range or rent level of the proposed housing, the applicant cannot meet this first criterion for its needed housing application. The burden of meeting the applicable criteria belongs to the applicant. This record fails to provide evidence that this application meets the criterion under EC 9.8325(1). Last, to the extent that the applicant cites a housing inventory for its theory that the proposed development is one for needed housing, such argument does not comport with ORS 197.304. This statute requires the Hearings Official to apply the needed housing statutes and the needed housing requirements separately from any housing inventory prepared with the City of Springfield. The housing inventory cited by applicant is a combined inventory for both Eugene and Springfield. However, ORS 197.304(1) requires that we look only to Eugene in implementing ORS 197.307. ORS 197.304(1) ("Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190.130 or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary, a city within Lane County that has a population of 50,000 or more within its boundaries shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from any other city within Lane County.") (Emphasis added.). With ORS 197.304, the Hearings Official cannot look to the joint Eugene-Springfield housing inventory for purposes of the applicant's requirement to show compliance with needed housing "as defined by state statute." Because applicant has not cited to a needed housing inventory developed "separately from any other city within Lane County," the applicant fails to satisfy its evidentiary burden under EC 9.8325(1). EC 9.8325(5) "There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope." Applicant's site map shows portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. However, not all portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope are identified on the site map. Using the five-foot contour intervals on the site map, it is readily apparent Hearings Official Ken Helm November 10, 2015 Page 3 that there are unmarked portions of the development site that also exceed 20% slope. Planning staff proposes a condition of approval for this criterion that relies on the applicant's site map. Because of the site map's failure to mark all portions of the development site that exceed 20% slope, such reliance is unfounded. The condition of approval should be modified to restrict grading on all portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope, whether or not the site map shows the applicable portions of the development site. EC 9.8325(6)(a) "The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below)." The applicant makes some generalized statement that Vivian Way would be too steep to develop. Similarly vague, the Staff Report indicates that Planning staff contacted an unnamed Public Works staff who apparently agreed that Vivian Way would be too steep to develop. None of these statements are supported by any evidence in the record. Moreover, none of this actually goes to the criteria for an exception under EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2.)(a.). EC 9.6815(2)(c) provides the street connectivity standard at issue by stating: "(c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the development site or that is separated from the development site by a drainage channel, transmission easement, survey gap, or similar property condition. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to the proposed development's street system." EC 9.6815(2)(g) then provides a mechanism for an "exception" to this standard by stating: "In the context of a Type II or Type III land use decision, the city shall grant an exception to the standards in subsections (2)(b), (c) or (d) if the applicant demonstrates that any proposed exceptions are consistent with either subsection 1. or 2. Below:" EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2.) then provides the relevant standards for the applicable exemption by stating: "The applicant demonstrates that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a. Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to Hearings Official Ken Helm November 10, 2015 Page 4 natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law." It is apparent that the applicant is seeking to make use of the "topography" element of the exception. However, there is no evidence in the record upon which to base a finding for the exception. The lack of evidence brings more questions than answers. Vivian Way may have a portion that is too steep to justify development, but does that mean the entire length of Vivian Way cannot be developed? What is the extent of the physical condition that prevents completion of Vivian Way? Why is the topography such that a Vivian Way cannot be at least partially paved to provide access to the development? The connectivity standard is clear and directs that development of adjacent rights of way. Indeed, directing traffic off West Amazon and onto Vivian Way would seem to reduce crowding on an already undersized road. Vivian Way is adjacent to the development, but there is no evidence in the record as to why it cannot be paved (or at least partial paved) as required by the connectivity standards. The record before the Hearings Official does not support an exception to the connectivity standards. At the very least, it does not support a total exception - surely a portion of Vivian Way could be constructed to provide access to the development. EC 9.8325(6)(c) "The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (c) The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19." As the criterion itself states, this criterion exists to ensure "safe and adequate transportation systems." As evidenced by the August, 2014 fire on Owl Road, the current transportation system on West Amazon Drive is neither safe nor adequate. Adding more homes to the mix just makes it more unsafe and more inadequate. While the definition of "street" in the code includes "unimproved" public ways, it only does so to the extent the unimproved public way would allow "ingress or egress for vehicular traffic." EC. 9.0500. The evidence in this record is uncontroverted that West Amazon Drive contains only one ingress/egress point for vehicular traffic. The unimproved section of West Amazon Hearings Official Ken Helm November 10, 2015 Page 5 Drive is a hiking trail that is cut off by a drainage ravine. As a result, for purposes of this criterion, the applicant cannot count on West Amazon Drive as providing more than one ingress/egress point for the proposed development. By filing its needed housing application, the applicant is not assured of approval. If the application does not meet the applicable objective criteria, the proper result is denial of the application. Staff's interpretation of the cases on this point are correct. The application here cannot meet this standard and the application should be denied. Adjustment Applicant filed for an adjustment of the paving width standards found in EC 9.6505. Adjusting the paving width is acceptable under the adjustment review procedures. However, the applicant appears to seek to adjust the pavement width to zero and not provide connectivity to Vivian Way through the adjustment process. Getting around the connectivity requirements, which are not subject to adjustment, by adjusting the paving to zero is an improper means to address the connectivity requirement. The adjustment request should be denied because the applicant does not address why the paving width should be less than required under EC 9.6870. Although the proposed development shows no access to Vivian Way, that is not a justification for reducing the paving width. Reducing the paving width to zero is not an option for adjustment. MINUTES Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room--99 West 10°i Avenue May 10, 1999 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Robert Conrad, President; Anne Marie Levis, Vice President; Adell McMillan, Ellen Wojahn, Art Farley, Peter Bartel, members; Dave Reinhard, Paul Farmer, ex officio members; Jerry Jacobson, Teresa Bishow, Kurt Yeiter, Nan Lawrence, Dick Gassman, Mike McKerrow, Planning and Development Department; Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Eugene City Council;- Gloria Gardner, Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment; Tom Connelly, David Hinkely, Jon Belcher, Jan Wostman, Philip Farrington, Roxie Cueller, guests. ABSENT: John Van Landingham, member. Mr. Conrad called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order. 1. LAND USE CODE UPDATE A. Planned Unit Development (9.6400-9.6430) Mr. Kelly addressed the commission. He stressed the importance of the PUD as a tool in achieving well-organized projects that fit their surroundings and benefit both existing residents and the developer. He said that the process must be fair for the public, the developer, and staff. He asked the commission to maintain the current processes in the code and strengthen them where possible. Mr. Kelly called the commission's attention to the letter from Jake Bradshaw in the meeting packet, which addressed several process issues, including the continuance used by the developer of Son Blaze to allow what was essentially a new application to be submitted. He said the use of the continuance was unfair to the residents, the Hearings Official, and staff. Mr. Kelly thanked the commission for its work. Mr. Farmer and Ms. Wojahn arrived at 11:47 p.m. Ms. Bishow called the commission's attention to the site plan for three PUDs approved in recent years. The commission reviewed the site plans for Somerset Three. Ms. Bishow noted the use of circle lots and the lack of fences on the site plan and pointed out common areas on the plan. She explained that as property owners bought their lots, they essentially bought a buildable area on which to construct. The boundaries of the lots were not as well-defined as in a traditional subdivision. She noted that the Somerset Three PUD did not illustrate clustering or a mix of use, so staff had also provided the site plan for University Commons to illustrate examples of those elements. In that case, the property owners had the choice of selecting site review or the PUD overlay, and requested the PUD overlay. MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 1 00007861 Ms. Bishow pointed out the mix of housing on the site and the mixed-use commercial area, which was limited in size to neighborhood-oriented commercial services. She said that several design features, such as the small lots on which the cottages were located, would not be permitted in a standard subdivision. Responding to a question from Mr. Conrad regarding the density on the University Commons site, Mr. Yeiter said that it was an average 15 units an acre. The site was 19 acres in size. Responding to a question from Ms. McMillan, Ms. Bishow said that staff was working with the developer to clarify the range of commercial services that would be allowed. The developer initially wanted the commercial area to be located on Garden Way, but staff preferred that it be located on the interior of the site to more directly serve the residents. Mr. Yeiter added that the development did include the potential for a small amount of commercial activity on the corner of Garden Way. Responding to a question from Ms. Cueller, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the developer of University Commons had to waive the 120-day window for the City's decision to accommodate the needed design changes. She added that in this case, public interest in the project was low, possibly due to its low visibility from Garden Way. Ms. McMillan asked if there were historic considerations regarding the houses along Garden Way that had been nominated for the National Register. Ms. Bishow said that the owner of one such house was involved in the design; that property was abutted by cottages. She noted that since the PUD was approved, City staff had expressed interest in acquiring a part of that area for a park. The commission reviewed Alpine East PUD located off Stonewood Drive. Ms. Bishow pointed out that density was achieved through clustering, which also served to protect the wooded areas on the site. The commission reviewed the Fairway Loop PUD. Ms. Bishow pointed out the mix of commercial development and attached single-family housing. She said that the access way provided an opportunity for shared services and facilities. The developer retained landscaping on the northern portion of the site to increase the setback and provide a buffer. Existing vegetation along the creek was preserved. Ms. Bishow pointed out that the housing wascloser to Fairway Loop than normally permitted, but explained City staff believed it was a good tradeoff with the additional open space retained along the northern edge. Ms. Bishow called the commission's attention to the key policy issues in the meeting packet: Is Section 9.6400 clear regarding the overall purpose of the Planned Unit Development (POD)? The commission agreed that the purpose of the section was clear. Mr. Stafford suggested that the purpose statement implied that other code standards could be relaxed. Ms. Bishow agreed. Mr. Stafford suggested that the fact could be more clearly stated. If the intent was that there be more flexibility to the standards, the reader should know which standards could be modified. Ms. Bishow proposed that the purpose statement be revised to indicate that the PUD allows consideration of modifications. The commission concurred. MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 2 0000'7862 ( 2. Should the PUD. process be an option without requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the project can not occur within the framework of regular code standards? Ms. Bishow explained that the PUD process can currently be used if required by an adopted study or if the proposed development could not be accomplished without using other available zoning or land division procedures. She said that Section 9.6450(B) attempted to address the issue by allowing the PUD provisions to be used when the proposed design could not be accommodated in any other way. Mr. Conrad asked why the commission did not simply say the PUD provisions could be requested by the owner. Ms. Childs agreed. She said that there were likely many situations where the PUD was the most appropriate approach. She did not think property owners would request PUDs if they could accomplish what they wanted through the subdivision process. She recommended that subsection (B) be eliminated because while it was technically accurate, it was unclear. She said that it could be revised to indicate that the property owner could use the PUD process if he or she believed it would result in a better design. Mr. Bartel questioned the difference between Section 9.6450 and the alternative path. Ms. Bishow suggested it could be a sort of alternative path. Mr. Conrad concurred it might be one alternative path but perhaps not the only one because of its focus on projects of a larger size. Mr. Slocum asked if rezoning was required for the application of the PUD process. Ms. Bishow said no; the applicant could apply for a PUD and, under the commission's latest suggestion, not have to show the City a conceptual plan before requesting the PUD. She added that the PUD suffix was not a zoning overlay like site review. Mr. Jacobson noted that the current code does not give the Hearings Official the authority to apply the zoning overlays in the plan and asked Ms. Bishow to check on the language in the draft code. 3. Are the approval criteria in Section 9.6420 clear? Do they sufficiently address the range of design issues important to consider in a PUD? The commission reviewed the proposed criteria and contrasted them with the current criteria. The commission concurred that the use of the term "reasonably compatible" in Section 9.6420 was problematic. Mr. Conrad preferred the original criteria because of its specificity. Mr. Farmer reminded the commission that it was discussing PUDs, and flexibility, not certainty, was the goal. He did not think it was a problematic phrase for a PUD. Mr. Slocum said that most of the compatibility issues he had seen were related to controversy over the density proposed for low-income housing. He suggested that the code specifically identify items, such as density, that were not a basis for judging compatibility. Responding to a question from Mr. Bartel, Ms. Bishow said that evaluating a PUD required judgment. The criteria provided for considerable discretion because of the high degree of flexibility intended. If the City decided, for example, that the minimum building height standard allowed in a base zone would always be permitted, it changed the process from a discretionary process to a more constrained process. MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 3 0000786 3 Mr. Conrad said his focus was on those issues related to the subject of compatibility. Everyone had an idea about what the term meant. He liked Mr. Slocum's idea to identify density as an issue that was not a basis for an appeal regarding compatibility. Mr. Stafford questioned the relationship between a PUD and density. Ms. Bishow said that there have been cases where the developer could not meet the criteria of preserving, to the extent possible, the existing vegetation on a site and achieve the called-for density. The design of the structures on the site might have to be altered to save more trees. Ms. Bishow said that the goal of the PUD was to balance the built environment with the natural environment. Mr. Jacobson agreed, adding that a PUD could achieve a higher density with the use of clustering than a subdivision could and also provide greater protection for natural resources. Ms. Wojahn said that it was the commission's task to resolve compability issues, and she did not want to hamstring the process by being overly proscriptive. She also did not favor removing density from consideration when evaluating compatibility. Mr. Farmer observed that there were several measures of density,. including unit per acres, floor area, bedroom counts, etc. He said the purpose of a PUD was to allow the underlying zoning density to be achieved but in an alternative manner. One area of the site may be more dense than another area to protect a natural resource, for example. Mr. Farmer said that traditionally PUDs do provide a density bonus for specified things, such as restoration of environmental damage on a stream. Ms. Childs was concerned about the use of the term "reasonably compatible with the surrounding r' properties" in the proposed criteria in Section 9.6420(C) , noting it did not currently exist as a criteria. If a PUD was successful in reducing impact through clustering, the City would be hard-pressed to say the kind of structure mix was necessarily compatible with existing adjacent single-family residential development. She noted this criterion could result in more appeals. Ms. McMillan shared Ms. Wojahn's concern about the need to maintain flexibility. Ms. Levis did not like the phrase "reasonably compatible" because she believed it would mean staff had less flexibility in evaluating a proposal. Mr. Farley concurred. He suggested that staff seek another phrase, such as "design consideration should have minimal impact." Ms. Wojahn said she was less concerned about the term "reasonably compatible" than she was by the list of design elements that followed it. Mr. Bartel said that flexibility in the criteria was key. Ms. Childs agreed with Ms. Wojahn that the list of design elements was important. She said that if the commission endorsed the list, staff would develop alternatives to "reasonably compatible." Ms. Childs asked the commission to confirm the list of design elements. The commission agreed. Ms. Bishow contrasted the current and draft criteria. Mr. Jacobson said that staff had not historically considered compatibility when evaluating PUDs. He considered compatibility considerations to be more appropriate for the conditional use process, where MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 4 0000'7064 proposed uses may not possibly be compatible and could be prohibited. PUDs addressed outright uses with alternative designs. Ms. McMillan liked the draft criteria. Mr. Farley agreed. He suggested that item 9.6420(C)(4) related to natural resources be eliminated because the issue was addressed in section (D). Ms. McMillan suggested it be retained because it addressed off-site impacts. Staff concurred. Ms. Childs suggested staff examine the use of the word "minimize." Mr. Conrad referred to the City's Growth Management Study policies and said that because of the City's decision to densify, the appearance of the community would change over time. He said the commission needed to consider compatibility but to acknowledge the impact of what that meant. Ms. Childs summarized the commission's input, which was to revise the preamble and maintain the five new draft criteria in Section 9.6420(C). Responding to a request for direction from Ms. Bishow, the commission agreed to retain the phrase "but not limited to" in (C). Also at Ms. Bishow's request, commissioners discussed the phrase "adequately preserve" in (D) as it pertained to the retention of significant natural features. Mr. Jacobson believed that the phrase "to the extent possible" would give a developer more direction, but acknowledged that both were subjective. Ms. Cueller thought that "to the extent practicable" was overly restrictive. She said it implied that l preservation of natural features had priority over other goals, such as density. She said that flexibility was needed. Mr. Conrad said that the commission had a vision of the draft code's intent, and he did not perceive a policy difference between the phrases in actual implementation. Ms. Bishow clarified that "to the extent possible" in this context meant that developers preserved natural features to the extent possible given the basic design of the development and the density proposed. Mr. Slocum advocated for the elimination of the phrase "but not limited to" in (C). He said the commission should determine if it wanted five criteria or unlimited criteria. He endorsed the phrase "to the extent possible." Mr. Farley suggested the phrase "adequately preserve and avoid unnecessary disruption to..." Mr. Conrad reminded the commission that it was discussing development policies related to development on land inside the urban growth boundary, rather than protection policies related to preventing development. Mr. Farley suggested that the commission was discussing something in between the two; he noted the City's goals related to preservation of the environment. Ms. Wojahn said that the list in (C) represented things that the City did not "bargain" away. She believed that "to the extent possible" made sense, particularly given the City's densification goals. Ms. Levis and Ms. McMillan concurred. Ms. Bishow asked the commission if it wished to have stronger environmental protection measures in the code, or leave the stronger environmental protection measures that developments could be subject to as additional criteria in the refinement plans, such as the South Hills Study. MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 5 0000'7865 Mr. Farmer urged the commission to write the code to achieve the City's goals related to development and environmental protection. He said that the code needed to have more clarity and detail about what the City was trying to accomplish. He said the commission wanted to avoid situations where people used different interpretations of the code to preclude development. Responding to a question from Ms. Wojahn about his reaction to the phrase "to the extent possible," he said that being more "upfront" about what the City was trying to achieve regarding growth management and density could avoid the need for the phrase. Mr. Kelly did not think the commission needed to choose density above environmental protection or vice versa. He agreed with Ms. Wojahn that the list in (C) represented things that should not be bargained away but that did not mean development would not occur. He endorsed Mr. Farmer's suggestions about clarifying the code intent. Mr. Nystron said that the last statement in (D) was an attempt to address the concerns raised by Mr. Farmer. He said that it was very difficult for the City to mandate changes in design with the current PUD criteria. He said that the commission might wish to discuss if it wanted to take a more mandatory approach. Mr. Bartel said that he did not object to going that direction but questioned if the City had sufficient staff expertise to deal with the more complicated development sites. Mr. Nystrom said the City staff team had considerable expertise. Ms. Bishow added that Eugene had an active citizenry offering input as well. Ms. Childs said that the term "significant" as used in (D) had meaning beyond the code in terms of natural resource planning. She said that the list of items in that section were-a mixture of items that { would be considered "significant" under Statewide Goal 5. Referring to item 3, "Prominent Topographic Features," Ms. Childs suggested that staff check the Metropolitan Plan to see if it contained such a list of specific topographic features in the community. Mr. Jacobson doubted such a list existed. Mr. Farley supported Mr. Farmer's suggested approach. He wanted to include mention of development that left a still environmentally functional site, including consideration of stormwater and clean air. He suggested that the information could be included in the preamble. Ms. Cueller requested clarification, saying "to the extent possible," implied preservation of significant natural features as opposed to whatever was necessary to implement the development proposal. She said that the code needed to be clear about what had priority. Mr. Conrad said that the intent was that the development fit within the confines of the natural system. Ms. Cueller agreed with that intent, saying the intent of the PUD was to maximize development while preserving natural features. She was concerned about (D)(1), saying that if the City was going to give a priority to preserving natural resources it needed to clarify phrases such as "mature and prominent individual trees." Mr. Farrington concurred with Ms. Cueller, asking if a remnant orchard, for example, was a significant onsite feature. He said that developers needed to know upfront what constraints existed on a site so they did not misspend their time on designs that the City would not accept. Ms. Wojahn wanted to reduce misspent time and suggested that the City use predevelopment conferences whenever possible to ensure that developers were aware of code requirements. MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 6 0000'7866 Ms. Childs asked if the South Hills Study criteria would be codified. Ms. Bishow said no; the code called for consistency with refinement plans. Staff relied on the developer to go to the refinement plan to avoid the need to amend the code when refinement plans were amended. Ms. Childs suggested that staff consider how the criteria in the draft code differed from the criteria in the South Hills Study because there may be some situations where what was most important was what was required by the South Hills Study. Ms. Bishow said that staff would consider the commission's input and revise the (C) and (D). Mr. Conrad stressed the importance of the review process to achieving the City's goals. He agreed with Ms. Wojahn regarding the importance of predevelopment conferences and wondered if that included staff accompanying developers on site visits. Responding to a request for direction from Ms. Bishow, the commission agreed it wished to include preapplication conferences as a PUD requirement. Ms. Bishow reviewed other changes proposed by staff to Section 9.6420. Mr. Jacobson questioned the inclusion of (J), requiring that a project comply with all applicable portions of the Land Use Code, as a criteria. He suggested that it be moved to another location in the PUD section as a statement of fact. Ms. Childs said she understood the staff intent, but pointed out it would require staff to develop findings of compliance. Ms. Bishow said her focus was on what level of weight the final PUD would have; should development proceed even if staff missed something? In some cases, she said, staff does miss things. She suggested that if staff missed a lot line adjustment that was not sufficiently significant to overturn a PUD approval. The PUD was a master plan designed to produce a livable, functional, attractive environment. Ms. Wojahn suggested that staff seek legal counsel on (J), as well as have discussion about the impact of the review that would be required. Mr. Conrad reminded the commission of its goal to streamline the code and said he agreed with Ms. Bishow. He suggested that requiring predevelopment conferences would help to ensure the code requirements were met. Returning to the subject of compatibility, Ms. McMillan suggested that staff consider Growth Management Study policy 9, which discusses the City's intent to mitigate the effects of high-density development. Referring to the application review process, Mr. Farley suggested that developers be required to invite a member of the affected neighborhood group to participate in the process. II. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Council Action MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 7 0000786 7 Mr. Reinhard distributed and a memorandum entitled Revised Draft Arterial and Collector Street Plan, which contained the City Council's plan review and adoption schedule. Ms. Childs said that the adopting resolution and ordinances would be included as appendixes to ensure that the council was clear about what it was adopting. Ms. Childs reported that the City Council would appoint a new Planning Commission member later that day. Ms. Childs announced that the City had reached agreement with Marist High School on the matter of the bicycle path easement, and the school had withdrawn its appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Mr. Reinhard briefly reviewed the terms of the agreement. B. Subcommittee Reports Ms. McMillan called the commission's attention to the upcoming Historic Preservation Week and associated events. She said that the Historic Review Board did not meet in April, but was meeting in May to consider a City landmark designation. Mr. Farmer announced a walking tour of downtown at 5:30 p.m. followed by a talk by County Commissioner Peter Sorenson at the Downtown Athletic Club. Ms. Wojahn reported that the North End Scoping Group was trying to get to the details of a plan for the area, and was drawing from such resources as the Visual Preference Survey and TRIP (Transportation Rule Implementation Project). C. Other Items from the Commission and Staff There were no other items. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) C: I WINDOWSITEMPI pc990510. wpd MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 8 oooo 7868 ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 10, 1999 To: Planning Commission From: Planning Division Re: LAND USE CODE UPDATE: 9.6000s APPLICATION REOUIREMENTS & CRITERIA (Selected Sections from 9.6400 through 9.6535) Action Requested: To provide preliminary comments to staff regarding draft application requirements and criteria for the following: 1) Planned Unit Development, and 2) Site Review. Brief Summary of Agenda Item: On May 10, 1999, the commission is scheduled to review the following draft code sections: Planned Unit Development (EC 9.6400- 9.6435) Site Review (EC 9.6500- 9.6535) Background: The key policy issues regarding the land use application approval criteria are listed below: 1. Planned Unit Development A. Is Section 9.6400 clear regarding the overall purpose of the Planned Unit Development? B. Section 9.6405 indicates that PUD process shall be used if required by an adopted refinement plan (such as the South Hills Study) or if the property is actually zoned with the /PD zoning overlay. Currently, the PUD process may also be used incases where "The proposed development cannot be accomplished using other available zoning or land division provisions." Should the PUD process be an option without requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the project can not occur within framework of regular code standards? C. Section 9.6420 contains approval criteria for PUDs. Are the criteria clear? Do they sufficiently address the range of design issues important to consider in a PUD? 2. Site Review A. Do the approval criteria in Section 9.6515 adequately address the range of issues which should be evaluated in site review, keeping in mind potential new multiple-family and commercial design standards? Land Use Code Update I-1 0000'7869 B. Current site review process allows for the establishment of site-specific criteria for a given parcel. Proposed text would simplify site review evaluation by standardizing criteria for all site review applications, including those sites previously rezoned with individualized criteria. Do the benefits of a simplified system outweigh the benefits of having "tailored" criteria? C. Should.site reviews limit the range of modifications which can be made to the development standards, as the existing code currently does, or should a broader list of standards be eligible for modification? Items Enclosed: Index Item #197: Letter from Thomas Hannah, Arcadia Neighbors, urging use of "a set of guidelines where connectivity may be required, and a set of parameters defining circumstances where connectivity is inadvisable." Letter contains a list of 6 proposed exceptions to the connectivity rule. Index Item #198: Letter from Gail "Jake" Bradshaw, Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, indicating concerns about the potential misuse of the ability to request a continuance of a public hearing on a land use application. Suggests changing EC % 9.5070(L) to state that the Hearings Official "may" grant a continuance request instead of "shall" grant the request. The Hearings Official could determine whether there was a basis for granting the continuance or whether it was being used inappropriately to actually modify the application. Letter also raises concern about EC 9.5025 Limitations on Refiling of Denied Applications being changed from the need to "overcome" the reasons for denial if trying to submit within a year, to the use of the word "address" the reasons for denial. 9.6000s Application Requirements and Criteria for Planned Unit Developments and Site Reviews Summary of Public Testimony Regarding Selected Sections of 9.6000s Application Requirements and Criteria For More Information: Contact Teresa Bishow, Land Use Code Update Project Manager, at (541) 682-5452. E-mail: teresa.a.bishow@ci.eugene.or.us TB C:\User\LUCU\Ping Comm\pc05lO99.wpd Land Use Code Update 1-2 0000'78'70 ,~F-•• - ~ t" l % Item # 198 Planning Commission April 25, 1999 c/o Teresa Bishow 99 W. 10th Ave Eugene Or 97401 Dear Commissioners: My comments concern the Draft Land Use Code, Section 9.5000s, regarding Land use application procedures. There are two areas that need revision. These suggestions are based on our neighborhood's past involvement in the PUD process (Son Blaze/Moon Mt. The first item concerns 9.5070, Quasi-Judicial Hearings-Order of Procedure for Type III applications. Letter "L" deals with Continuance of Hearing. A continuance should not be allowed as a tool to significantly alter an application. There needs to be some provision added that gives the hearings official the authority to deny this use of the continuance. The continuance is provided to "present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony regarding the application". Unfortunately, the applicant often tries to misuse the continuance to significantly modify the submitted application in an attempt to win approval. The language says that the hearings official "shall" grant a continuance request. Change the wording to "may" or add language that gives the hearings official the authority to decide if the result of the continuance is being used to modify the application. If it is, the hearings official should be able to rule that the applicant needs to file a new application. The goal is to get the applicant to address the plan as submitted rather than design last minute on the run. The second point concerns 9.5025 "Limitations on Refiling of Denied Applications". The text reads: "The ci may waive the one year waiting period if the city concludes, based on a written statement from the applicant, that the earlier proposal was sufficiently modified, or that conditions changed sufficiently, to evereemeaddress the reasons for denial." (emphasis added) The language has been changed from "overcome" to "address". This softening of the language is not acceptable. The term "address" is extremely vague. I have asked Teresa Bishow to clarify the legal meaning of the term "address" with the City attorney. The intent of this provision is for the applicant to overcome the reasons for denial. Also, the language should state that the Planning Director, not just "the city" should make the waiver decision. Sincerely, Gail "Jake" Bradshaw Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley Citizens APR 2 9 0ooo I-3 Monday, April 26, 1999 Item # 197 Eugene Planning Commission ATTN: Teresa Bishow VIA FAX 514-682-5572 Dear Teresa: Contrary to testimony heard today, there are presently almost no exceptions to the connectivity rule which would help us avoid violating other laws and standards in some cases of required connections. The following exerpt from my longer document (with some alterations and deletions) details our suggestions for amending the rule: We recommend re-wording the rule to soften the "...connection shall be provided..."language we recommend the Commission substitute the words "may be required". We suggest the Planning Department then develop a set of guidelines where connectivity may be required, and a set of parameters defining circumstances where connectivity is inadvisable. Alternatively, if the commission prefers to retain the rigid mandate, we recommend adding additional exceptions to the connectivity rule. Our suggestions for amendments appear below: Proposed exception #1: Where... a proposed connection would cause the prior existing road to violate its functional designation or classification (for example, cause a local residential street to become a de facto collector), or would cause the existing road to exceed its design capacity or level of service as those terms are used in the TPR, the Eugene code, and various Area plans, street plans, and transportation plans..... Proposed Exception #2: Where... a proposed connection would violate existing standards requiring the preservation of existing neighborhoods or requiring the preservation of the use of local streets for local traffic as those terms are defined in the Eugene code and various Area plans, street plans, and transportation plans..... Proposed Exception #3: Where... the proposed connection would hamper the development of, or would unnecessarily damage the utility of, proposed or existing public parks, recreational areas, or open spaces..... Proposed Exception #4: Where... a proposed connection would do more damage to the aspirational planning goals of the community than the social good created by the proposed connection; alternatively, where... a proposed connection would be unnecessary, redundant, or would have financial and/or social costs that exceed the ascertainable community benefit of the connection Proposed Exception #5: Where... the proposed connection demonstrably will create "unreasonable street congestion" under Eugene Code Section 9.035(4)(d) or will violate the requirements of Eugene Code Section 9.035 (4) (b) respecting the health and safety of adjoining land.... Proposed Exception #6: Where... a proposed motor vehicle connection would endanger the safety of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on existing roadways abutting the proposed development..... In all cases where the Director does not require a connection suitable for two-way motor vehicle traffic, the Department may satisfy the objective of connectivity under this section by requiring a connection limited to one- way motor vehicle traffic and/or to a non-motor-vehicle pedestrian and bicycle pathway, provided such pathway is constructed to allow emergency vehicle access when necessary. Arcadia residents recognize that not every situation (perhaps not even our own) would result in an exception being granted. We present these suggestions in the interest of a more fair and functional connectivity rule, which at least attempts to respect the interests of existing residents while still achieving the goals of the "purpose and Intent" section of 9.4815. Re ectfully Submitted s E-1 ~a i ARCADIA NEIGHBORS i FAPR i ,L-W.D. 7.8'7 21'. I-4 F ~ ~ 9.6000s Application Requirements and Criteria EC 9.6400 - 9.6435 Planne EC 9.6500 - 9.6 April 30, 1999 Revised draft of the ent 00007873 I-s October 1997 DRAFT Land Use Code. Commentary Planned Unit Development 9.6400 Purpose of Planned Unit Development: Based on existing EC 9.508 Purpose. Draft changed to clarify that PUD process is designed to provide a high degree of flexibility to achieve resource protection, mix of uses, shared use of facilities and other objectives. 9.6405 Applicability. f Based on existing EC 9.509 Applicaby. Draft code deletes existing reference to uses which were approved prior to the adoption of PUD provisions in 1968, but not yet developed. This statement no longer appears necessary. Draft code clarifies that property owner may choose to have proposed development reviewed through the PUD process even if the property is not specifically zoned with the /PD overlay or required to go through the PUD process due to a refinement plan policy. 9.6410 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Requirements. (A) Ownership Based on existing EC 9.510(1) Ownership. This section is modified to require that PUD's include all contiguous property under the same ownership consistent with partition and subdivision applications. Also provides clarification regarding "contiguous" parcels to allow parcels separated by a public right-of-way to be included in the same PUD application. (B) Concurrent Review New section to refer code user to code section that provides a list of applications that can be processed at the same time. 00007874 514199 Commentary Page 9.6-22 I-6 Eugene Code -DRAFT- Application Requirements and Criteria Planned Unit Development, Tentative Plan 9.6400 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions are designed to provide a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site and the mix of land uses. The PUD process in intended to achieve the objectives listed below. (A) To create a sustainable environment that includes: 1. Shared use of services and facilities. 2. A compatible mix of land uses that encourage alternatives to the use of the automobile. 3. A variety of dwelling types that help meet the needs of all income groups in the community. 4. Preservation of existing natural resources and the opportunity to enhance habitat areas. 5. Clustering of residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource conservation while also achieving the planned density for the site. (B) To create comprehensive site plans for geographic areas of sufficient size to provide developments at least equal in quality to those that are achieved through the traditional lot by lot development and that are reasonably compatible with the surrounding area. 9.6405 Applicability (A) Planned Unit Development provisions shall be used when any of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed development is subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to an adopted refinement plan. 2. The property is zoned with a /PD zoning overlay. 3. One or more land uses proposed for the site are subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to the zoning. (B) In addition to the conditions listed in subsection (A) above, the PUD provisions may be used at the request of the property owner when strict compliance with the provisions in this Land Use Code would not provide an allowance for the type of design being proposed. 9.6410 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Requirements. (A) Ownership The area included in a proposed Planned Unit Development shall either be under single ownership or under the development control of a joint application of owners or option holders. The area shall include all contiguous property under the same ownership or development control as the applicant. Parcels separated by a public right-of-way which would otherwise be contiguous, shall be included in the PUD application unless the public right-of-way is designated an arterial or collector on the Street Classification Map. (B) Concurrent Review Refer to EC regarding the ability to submit land use applications concurrent with the review of a Tentative PUD. 0000787-5 DRAFT 9.6-22 5/4/99 I-7 Commentary (C) Project Coordinator and Design Team Based on existing EC 9.510(8) Professional Coordinator and Design Team. Section changed to focus on key issues. Revised language no longer requires project coordinator to maintain a Lane County address. (D) Phasing Based on existing EC 9.510(3) Phasin . Draft changed to clarify that any phasing plan submitted with the tentative PUD application shall clearly show the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. (E) Density Based on existing EC 9.510(6) Densi . 00007876 514199 Commentary Page 9.6-23 I-8 Eugene Code -DRAFT- Application Requirements and Criteria (C) Project Coordinator and Design Team The tentative PUD application shall identify the PUD project coordinator and the professional design team and indicate compliance with the following. 1. Professional Services. The project coordinator shall ensure that the required plans are prepared and executed according to any required conditions. The project coordinator shall also be the liaison between the applicant and the city. The project coordinator shall either be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners or licensed in the state of Oregon to practice architecture, landscape architecture or civil engineering. The project coordinator, or at least one design team member, shall attend all public meetings at which the proposed development is discussed. 2. Design team designation. Unless waived by the Planning Director, the design team shall prepare appropriate application materials and shall consist of at least the following professionals: a. Architect. b. Landscape Architect. C. Civil Engineer. d. Land Surveyor. Each team member must be licensed to practice his or her profession in the state of Oregon. 3. Plan certification. Certification of the services of the professionals responsible for particular drawings shall appear on those drawings. To ensure comprehensive review by the design team of all plans for compliance with the PUD provisions, the cover sheet shall contain a statement of review endorsed with the signatures of all designated members of the design team stating that the portion of the project in which he or she was involved complies with the following. a. Meets the standards of his or her profession. b. Complies with the tentative PUD criteria. (D) Phasing The Tentative Planned Unit Development shall indicate any proposed phases for which separate Final PUDs will be submitted. The phasing plan shall clearly indicate the boundaries and sequencing of the each phase. All phases shall be submitted for Final PUD approval within the required time frames unless an extension is granted according to EC 9. (E) Density Dwelling unit densities for Planned Unit Developments shall be consistent with EC 9.2575(F) Residential Density Per Net Acre. 1. Approved Residential Density. The calculation of the number of dwelling units allowed shall be determined based on EC 9.6410 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Requirements. 2. Easement Calculations. Residential density calculations may include areas in easements, with the exception of private streets or ingress/egress easements, if it is demonstrated that those areas will benefit residents of the proposed Planned Unit Development. DRAFT 9.6-23 0 0 0 0 7 8 7 7 5/4/99 I-9 Commentary (F) Solar Design Standards Based on existing EC 9.510(11) Solar Design Standards. Revised language references solar standards section in proposed EC 9.2585 Solar Lot Standards rather than restating them in this section. Draft deletes requirement that buildings demonstrate compliance with EC 9.2590 Solar Setback Standards. Existing EC 9.510(13) Underground Utilities is deleted. Proposed EC 9.4400 through EC 9.4410 address public improvement standards for all development applications. Existing EC 9.510(14) Usable Outdoor Living Area is deleted. Proposed code addresses this elsewhere. In addition, current requirement is vague and difficult to apply for each PUD. Criteria regarding open space preservation and clustering have been further emphasized in EC 9.6420 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria allowing for case by case evaluation of common space provisions. Existing EC 9.510(7) Buildings and Uses Permitted is deleted since land use and permit requirements specified in 9.2000s Zoning will now indicate what types of uses can be included in a PUD. Existing EC 9.510(12) Public Use Areas is deleted since it is unclear and appears unnecessary. Other provisions in this section, including PUD criteria, address the issues discussed in this section. r (G) Site Modification Based on EC 9.510(16) Site Modification. Existing code section enables the Hearings Official to approve some alterations to natural features prior to final plan approval. Historically, this work has been restricted to public improvements only. Proposed language would eliminate this ability and require that all land use applications, including related subdivisions, be approved before any site work could commence. If existing code section is retained, staff recommends that the language specify that such work be restricted to public improvements. (H) Landscaping Based on existing EC 9.510(17) Landscaping. Draft code deletes reference to protection of solar access to solar protected building unless the vegetation is solar friendly. 9.6415 Modifications to Lot and Development Standards. Based on EC 9.510 (9, 10). Existing code sections address modifications to certain regulations, including a separate section regarding height. Revised text consolidates this information into one subsection. Rather than list each individual code section which can be modified (as the existing code attempts to do), the proposed text references more broad sections of the code. Revised text also provides clearer reference describing the basis for evaluating these modifications. 9.6420 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria. Based on existing EC 9.512(6) Decision. Most of the concepts and general language are maintained in this section. However, a substantial amount of reorganization has occurred so that each criterion focuses on a specific issue and is distinct from other criterion. In some cases, the 0000'7978 514199 Commentary Page 9.6-24 I-10 Eugene Code -DRAFT- Application Requirements and Criteria 3. Dedications. Residential density calculations may include areas dedicated to the public for recreation or open space if it is demonstrated that those areas will benefit residents of the proposed Planned Unit Development. 4. Cumulative Densitv. When approved in phases, cumulative residential density shall not exceed the overall density per acre established at the time of tentative plan approval. (F) Solar Design Standards For proposed lots designed for development with single-family detached structures, the Planned Unit Development shall comply with EC 9.2585 Solar Lot Standards. (G) Site Modification Vegetation, topography, and other natural features of areas proposed for Planned Unit Development shall remain substantially unaltered pending Final PUD approval. This includes site grading and removal of trees. If a subdivision is required, site modifications shall not be permitted until after Tentative Subdivision approval. (H) Landscaping If required landscaping cannot be completed prior to occupancy, or as otherwise required as a condition of approval, the Planning Director may require the applicant to post a performance bond of a sufficient amount and time to assure timely completion. 9.6415 Modifications to Lot and Development Standards. The Hearings Official may approve modifications from specific lot dimension and development standards listed in this Land Use Code with the exception of the following standards: (A) EC 9.4400 through EC 9.4410 Public Improvement Standards. (B) EC 9.4805 through EC 9.4860 Streets, Alleys, and other Public Ways Standards. This section is intended to allow flexibility with regard to the physical development of a site. It does not allow for modifications to provisions including, but not limited to, density, uses, and public infrastructure and services. At the time of Tentative PUD submittal, the applicant shall endeavor to identify those standards for which a modification is requested. The Hearings Official may approve modifications if it is determined that the proposal will be in accordance with EC 9.6400 Purpose of Planned Unit Development and EC 9.6420 Tentative Planned Unit Develolment Approval Criteria. 9.6420 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria. The hearings official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD application with findings and conclusions thereon. Decisions pertaining to a particular phase shall include review and recognition of the entire development. Decisions in all phases shall be based on the following criteria: (A) The Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Metro Plan. (B) The Planned Unit Development is consistent with applicable, adopted refinement plans. 0000`819 DRAFT 9.6-24 5/4/99 1-11 Commentary existing criteria have overlapping issues, while in other cases multiple issues are discussed within one criterion. (A) and (B) Based on existing EC 9.512(6)(a and b). (C) Based on existing EC 9.512(6)(c). This section is modified to clarify design elements to consider when evaluating compatibility. (D) Based on EC 9.512 (6)(c and f). This section combines issues addressing the preservation of natural features currently found in existing sections 9.512 (6)(c and f). Additional language was added to criterion D to provide stronger emphasis on resource driven designs. This language would help make it clear that alternative designs must be incorporated, if necessary, to preserve significant natural features. Existing code criterion 9.035(4)(g) below is proposed to be deleted; 9.035(4)(g) The street layout of the proposed subdivision shall disperse motor traffic onto more than one public local street when: 1. The subdivision exceeds 19 lots; or 2. The sum of proposed subdivision lots and the existing lots utilizing a public local street would exceed 19 lots, and that public local street is the single means of ingress and egress; unless the planning director determines it is not feasible due to physical constraints, such as topography, the previous layout of the surrounding area, or similar constraints. The 19 lot rule" is recommended for elimination due to the adoption of the Eugene Local Street Plan which incorporate a comprehensive set of requirements to address street connectivity. In general, the street connectivity standards provide an effective tool for the City to acquire the necessary right-of-way, including the appropriate alignment, as each land division application is submitted, whereas the "19 lot rule" is intended to ensure that adequate street connections are already in place. However, this provision can severely impact the ability to develop infill parcels even though many sites can demonstrate compliance with the City's new connectivity requirements. If there is interest to maintain the "19 lot rule", staff recommend that it be revised to address existing deficiencies. (E) Based on EC 9.512(6)(c)(5). Reworded existing criterion which requires compliance with Eugene Local Street Plan requirements. No substantive changes proposed. (F), (G), and (I) Based on EC 9.512(6)(d), (f) and (g). (H) Based on EC 9.512(h). 00007880- 514199 Commentary Page 9.6-25 I-12 Eugene Code -DRAFT- Application Requirements and Criteria (C) The Planned Unit Development's general design and character is reasonably compatible with surrounding properties including both the built and natural environment including, but not limited to, the following design elements: 1. Anticipated building locations, bulk, and height. 2. Location and distribution of outdoor recreation space. 3. Location and design of streets, access, and parking. 4. Anticipated impacts to existing natural resources. 5. The mix of proposed land uses. (D) The Planned Unit Development will adequately preserve significant natural features including: 1. Significant on-site vegetation, including but not limited to, rare plants, mature and prominent individual trees, and stands of trees. 2. Prominent topographic features. 3. Stream corridors and riparian areas. 4. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as "Natural Resource" and areas identified in any City-adopted natural resource inventories. Site design techniques that concentrate development, minimize grading, soil erosion and water quality impacts, or otherwise preserve significant natural features shall be incorporated unless it can be demonstrated that other site design techniques will accomplish a similar level of preservation. (E) The Planned Unit Development provides safe and adequate transportation systems including: 1. Compliance with.EC 9.4800 through EC 9.4870 Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways Standards. 2. Vehicular access to and from the proposed site, including on-site circulation. 3. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks. At a minimum, "nearby" is interpreted to mean uses within 1/4 mile which can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within one to two miles which can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. (F) The Planned Unit Development will not create significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, and emergency response; and complies with EC 9.4400 through EC 9.4410 Public Improvement Standards. (G) Public facilities and services are available to the site. If the public services and facilities are not presently available, an affirmative finding may be made if evidence indicates that they will be available prior to need by rdason of- 1 . Prior commitment of public funds or planning by the appropriate public agencies; or 2. A commitment by the applicant to provide private services and facilities acceptable to the appropriate public agencies; or 0000`881 DRAFT 9.6-25 5/4/99 I-13 Commentary 514199 Commentary Page 9.6-26 00007882 I-14 Eugene Code -DRAFT- Application Requirements and Criteria 3. Commitment by the applicant to provide for offsetting all added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by development. (H) Residents of the Planned Unit Development will have sufficient usable recreation, outdoor living area and open space that is convenient and safely accessible. (I) The Planned Unit Development will not create significant negative impacts from stormwater runoff on natural drainage courses either on-site or downstream, including, but not limited to, erosion, scouring, turbidity, or transport of sediment due to increased peak flows or velocity. (J) The proposed project complies with all applicable portions of this Land Use Code. 0000'7883 DRAFT 9.6-26 5/4/99 I-15 A I ntsk-m-e 149F Planning NOTICE E HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION May 8, 2015 On May 8, 2015, the Eugene Hearings Official conditionally approved a zone change from AG/WR Agricultural with Water Resources overlay to R-1/WR Low Density Residential with Water Resources overlay, and a tentative subdivision and traffic impact analysis to create 136 single-family residential lots. (City file numbers Z 15-3, ST 15-2, TIA 15-1/ City File Name Addyson Creek Subdivision ) A copy of the application, decision, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for review at the Planning Division and may be obtained at a reasonable cost. This notice and the Hearing Official's decision may also be viewed by visiting www.eugene-or.gov/luplanning. Unless appealed pursuant to Eugene Code Sections 9.7650 through 9.7685, this Hearings Official decision will be effective when the appeal period has expired. In this case, any appeal must be received by 5 p.m. on May 20, 2015. Appeal procedures, forms, and fee information are available at the City's Planning Division or on our web site. In accordance with Section 9.7655 of the Eugene Code, the Eugene Planning Commission will consider any appeals of this land use application. For additional information, please contact: Jacob Callister, Associate P!--nner City of Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail: jacob.l.callister@ci.eugene.or.us Phone: (541) 682-5317 Website: www.eugene-or.gov/planning City of Eugene • 99 W. 1 Oth Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/'planning DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION, AND TRAFFIC LbIPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Application File Name (Number): FAM-LEE, LLC - Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Applicant's Request: Zone change from AG - Agricultural to R-1 - Low Density Residential, tentative subdivision approval, and traffic impact analysis for a 136 single-family residential subdivision. Subject Property/Location: Located adjacent to the west side of River Road, north of Irvington Road, and southwest of River Loop 2. The legal description is Map 17-04-02-31, Tax Lot 1500. Relevant Dates: Applications submitted on February 6, 2015; applications deemed complete on March 13, 2015; public hearing held on April 29, 2015. Applicant's Representative: Bill Kloos of the Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC. Lead City Staff: Jacob Callister, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division. Summary of the Public Hearing The Hearings Official held a public hearing on this application on April 29, 2015. The Hearings Official stated he had no conflicts of interests, was not biased, and had no ex parte communications to disclose. No person objected to the Hearings Official conducting the hearing. Jacob Callister (Callister), Associate Planner, and Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, were present for the hearing. Callister presented the staff report at the public hearing, recommending approval of the applications. A number of people spoke in favor of the applications, a number of people who were neutral testified about the applications, and a number of people testified in opposition to the applications. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Hearings Official closed the record. Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 1 FACTS The subject property is approximately 33 acres located adjacent to the west side of River Road, north of Irvington Road, and southwest of River Loop 2. The property is a long narrow rectangle stretching east to west that is approximately one block wide from north to south, and Spring Creek crosses the middle of the property north to south. The property was recently annexed into the City and is zoned AG - Agricultural with a WR - Water Resources overlay for Spring Creek which is a Goal 5 resource. A mature filbert orchard has been on the property for a long time, but the filbert orchard has not been managed well for the past few years and the trees are in various states of decline. The property borders River Road to the east and is surrounded on the other sides by residential housing. The prior owners of the property allowed the public to use the orchard for various activities such as a de facto dog park. The applicant seeks to have the property rezoned to R-1 - Low-Density Residential while retaining the WR - Water Resources overlay. The request also seeks to subdivide the property into 136 residential lots. The proposal is to connect to River Road on the east, three local streets on the north, two local streets on the west, and to Argon Avenue at six locations on the south. As discussed later, the streets to the north and west are City streets while some of the streets to the south are county local access roads. DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the proposed zone change, tentative subdivision, and traffic impact analysis (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) as well as the testimony and documents provided at the public hearing. ANALYSIS The staff report does a thorough job of analyzing and discussing the myriad approval criteria necessary for approval of a zone change, tentative subdivision, and traffic impact analysis. The overwhelming majority of those findings are not challenged by opponents. It would be a waste of the City's money and resources to review and repeat all of the unchallenged findings. Therefore, I adopt and incorporate in this decision the findings in the staff report, except as discussed below. 1. Tree Preservation Opponents challenge the applications on the basis that the existing filbert orchard should be preserved. Initially, the applications do preserve all of the significant trees in the WR overlay zone Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 2 along Spring Creek. The applicant's arborist inventoried the trees, as well as their critical root zones, and all of the significant trees are preserved. Secondly, without delving into an extended discussion of needed housing law, the applicant is proceeding under the needed housing provisions of Eugene Code (EC) 9.8520. Under needed housing provisions, approval criteria must be clear and objective. Regarding tree removal and preservation under EC 9.8520(7)(a), an applicant must show that the proposal complies with EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885. Under 9.6885(2), an applicant must only submit a written report by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect that "reflect that consideration has been given to preservation" with certain priorities. EC 9.8665(2) does not actually require that trees be preserved. There is no dispute that the applicant provided the necessary report. Even if more than consideration was required, the filbert orchard is an agricultural crop rather than significant trees that would have to be preserved. Furthermore, the applicant's expert explains that the filberts are not healthy due to age and neglect. The applicant is not required by any approval criterion to preserve the filbert orchard, and all the trees in the WR overlay that need to be preserved are being preserved. This argument does not provide a basis to deny the applications. 2. Park Land Opponents argue that the subject property has been operating as a de facto park for many years and that the land is needed for further use as a park. While it was certainly generous of the former owner to allow the public to use the orchard for many public purposes, there is nothing in the City Code that requires that the property be reserved for the public as a park. There is an existing park along the northwest boundary of the property, and the City explored the possibility of acquiring the property to add to the existing park. The staff report, however, explains that due to a number of reasons, including a lack of funds and the property not being identified on any park master plans, the decision was made not to acquire the property for additional park land. This argument does not provide a basis to deny the applications. 3. Traffic and Roads While there was some discussion from opponents regarding the amounts of traffic and connectivity, the applicant's traffic impact analysis demonstrates that there is adequate capacity to meet the expected traffic to be generated from the proposed subdivision and that the connectivity requirements are satisfied. For instance, there are numerous proposed connections to the existing street pattern, and some opponents argued that there should be less or different connections. As the applicant explained, the connections were designed at the request of City planners to best satisfy the Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 3 City's connectivity requirements. The application easily satisfies the connectivity requirements of the EC. Opponents to the south also argue that the county local access streets are inadequate to handle even the rather limited amounts of traffic to be generated from the proposed subdivision that would use the streets to the south. As the opponents explain, some of the streets to the south, in particular Stark Street and Sanders Street, are county local access roads, which means they are county public roads but the county does not maintain the roads. The residents who live along those roads are apparently required to make any repairs. According to opponents, those streets are not developed to City standards, are already in a poor state, and the opponents that live there should not be required to repair any damage caused by additional traffic from the proposed subdivision. Generally, applicants are required to make half street improvements when developing a subdivision like the one proposed in this case. In the present case, the applicant is proposing to make full street improvements to the south. That is already above and beyond what is generally required. The applicant cannot be expected to make additional improvements off-site. The traffic impact analysis demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity on the streets to the south, including Stark Street and Sanders Street. While I am sympathetic to opponents' concerns about being responsible for the maintenance for local access roads, that is apparently the risk of using such roads. The staff report explains that the county will require the applicant to undergo a facility permit process which may address some of the opponents' concerns. Those concerns, however, do not provide a basis to deny the applications. The findings in the staff report explain how all the applicable approval criteria are satisfied. The opponents' arguments do not provide a basis to deny the applications. Therefore, I find that the applicant has satisfied all of the applicable approval criteria for a zone change, tentative subdivision approval, and traffic impact analysis. DECISION Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES the applicant's request for a zone change from AG - Agricultural with a WR - Water Resources Conservation overlay to R-I - Low-Density Residential with a WR - Water Resources Conservation overlay, tentative subdivision, and traffic impact analysis, subject to the following conditions of approval. Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 1. The applicant shall include a note on the final plat stating that Lot 45 is precluded from further land division in accordance with the maximum lot size exceptions at EC 9.2761(5)(a). 2. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan which eliminates the offset at the Patricia Street/Addyson Street intersection or increases the offset distance to 100 feet. 3. The applicant shall create a 1 foot reserve strip along the southerly margin of Chelsey Lane (to be renamed in accordance with other conditions of approval as noted below). The reserve strip, which shall be noted on the final plat as a 1-foot Reserve Strip "A", shall be conveyed to the City on a standard City form and recorded concurrent with the final plat. 4. Prior to final plat approval, the proposed street names for "Addyson Street", "Chelsey Lane", and "Jordan Lane" shall be subject to further review and approval in accordance with EC 9.6855. 5. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to depict 34-foot paving in a 60-foot right-of-way for Addyson Lane, between Patricia Street and River Road. 6. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan so that the proposed right-of-way for the bike-ped path is identified as a Public Accessway for Bicycles, Pedestrians, and Storm Drainage. 7. Prior to final plat approval, a PEPI permit shall be issued for the construction of public improvements. In lieu of a PEPI permit, a bond or other financial instrument guaranteeing the construction of public improvements shall be submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring that water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It is noted that EWEB currently acc,pts cash payments, bond or irrevocable letter of credit as financial guarantees. 9. The applicant shall submit the following information on a copy of the final plat, prepared by a certified engineer or licensed surveyor: delineation of the SFHA boundaries with Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 5 the corresponding FIRM numbers and date; determination of BFE for each lot (or the most conservative for the entire development) with an explanation of the methodology. 10. The final plat shall include a note stating which lots are within the SFHA and the BFE for those lots. 11. On the final plat, the applicant shall dedicate a public storm drainage easement downstream from the proposed box culvert over that area lying between the top banks of Spring Creek. 12. In order to protect the Critical Root Zone for Tree No. 1687, that portion of Lot 65 shown to be in the CRZ of Tree No. 1687 on the "Existing Tree Locations" Graphic dated April 28, 2015, shall be subject to a landscaping easement, to be shown on the final plans, that will prohibit construction in the landscape easement so long as that tree lives. Placement of a fence adjacent to the Conservation Easement shall be exempt from the landscape easement. 13. The applicant's final site plans shall be revised to clearly label and refer to the proposed collective riparian area and wetland setback line as the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line." 14. All excavation and construction, and any related impacts shall be limited to the area within the footprint of the delineated IWR exemption as shown on the applicant's "Site Plan for Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Existing Crossing." 15. Protective fencing shall be installed at the boundary of the exempted area as shown on the site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant's surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City staff. 16. Protective fencing shall also be installed at the boundary of the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line" as shown on the applicant's revised final site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant's surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City Staff. 17. The required protective fencing shall be installed prior to any construction related activity for the proposed development. Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 6 Dated this r day of May, 2015. Mailed this day of May 2015. Fred Wilson Hearings Official SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & T1A 15-1) Page A.-OkHearings Official Phone: 541-682-5377 www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial AGENDA Meeting Location: Harris Hall - Lane County Public Service Building 12 5 East 8t" 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, APRIL 29, 2015 (5:30 p.m.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Addyson Creek Subdivision Q 15-3, ST 15-2, TIA 15-1) Assessors Map: 17-04-02-31 Tax Lot: 1 500 Location: River Road - Between Brotherton and Irvington Request: Concurrent land use applications for a Zone Change from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low Density Residential (and retaining the existing /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone); Tentative Subdivision to create 136 lots; and Traffic Impact Analysis Applicant: Steve Lee, FAM-LEE LLC Applicant's Representative: Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos Lead City Staff: Jacob Callister, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5317 E-mail: jacob.I.callister@)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 neutral parties. 4. Testimony from opponents. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official's decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene- or.us/hearingsofficial. Aft, WPIanning Atrium Building 99 West 10" Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning STAFF REPORT ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW FOR ADDYSON CREEK (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Application Summary: A zone change application to change AG zoning to R-1 zoning. A tentative subdivision and accompanying TIA application to create 136 residential lots west of River Road, just north of Irvington Road and southwest of River Loop 2. Applicant: FAM-LEE, LLC Applicant's Representative: Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos. PC (541) 343-8596 Lead City Staff: Jacob Callister, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, (541) 682-5317 Subject Property/Zoning/Location: Tax Lot 1500 of Map 17-04-02-31; Zoned R-1 for the strip adjacent River Road and Agriculture for the balance, with the /WR Water Resource overlay; Located adjacent to the west side of River Road, north of Irvington Road and southwest of River Loop 2. Relevant Dates: Application submitted on February 6, 2015; deemed complete on March 13, 2015; public hearing scheduled for April 29, 2015. Background/Present Request An application for annexation of the roughly 33-acre subject property was submitted to the City on December 2, 2014. The associated Karolyn S. Wolf Testamentary Trust Annexation (A 14-8) was approved by the City Council on February 23rd, 2015, and became effective on February 25t", 2015. The subject property is located within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and is surrounded on all sides by the City limits. The portion of the property closest to River Road is zoned R-1/WR, Low-Density Residential with Water Resources Overlay, while the majority of the property is zoned AG/WR Agricultural with Water Resources Overlay. The Metro Plan and the River Road / Santa Clara Urban Facilities Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 Plan designate the subject property for low density residential use. The applicant wishes to rezone the entirety of the property to a base zone of R-1, consistent with the LDR plan designation, and to retain the existing WR overlay. The present request is to subdivide the subject property into 136 residential lots. The subject property abuts existing residential development on three sides and River Road on the east. The proposal is to connect to River Road on the east, three local streets on the north, two local streets on the west, and to Argon Avenue at six locations on the south property line. Public streets and public street improvements are proposed. For further details regarding the proposed development configuration, please refer to the applicant's written statement, site plan and related tentative subdivision application materials, as well as the following staff evaluation and related referral comments. For ease of reference, a vicinity map and reduced version of the applicant's tentative site plan are included as Attachments A and B to this staff report. Spring Creek bisects the property, running from south to north. The creek, its associated wetlands, and the area closest to the creek are protected under the City's Goal 5 regulations. There is an historic, culverted crossing of the creek near the north end of the site, which served the hazelnut farm and also continues to serve the EWEB power line structures along the north property line, as well as the associated EWEB substation at the northeast corner of the property. The footprint of this creek crossing is shown to be exempt from the Goal 5 regulations, due to its history, character, and continued use by EWEB. This creek crossing is proposed by the applicant to be replaced with a new, box culverted crossing in the same footprint. The new creek crossing proposes to convey stormwater, provide connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle traffic and for emergency vehicle access, and to provide a location for the discharge of treated stormwater to the creek. At the applicant's request, all three applications addressed in this staff report are being concurrently reviewed subject to the Type III application procedures addressed in Eugene Code section (EC) 9.7300-9.7340. Staff also notes that the applicant has requested review of the tentative subdivision application under EC 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria -Needed Housing, rather than the General approval criteria set forth in EC 9.8515. Public Notice/Referrals A neighborhood/applicant meeting was initially held January 27, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of EC 9.7007. The meeting was hosted by the applicant's representative, Bill Kloos and project Engineer Tom Poage. The meeting was held at the Santa Clara Fire Protection District community room. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce citizens of the neighborhood to the proposal. Public notice was initially mailed by the City for this proposal on March 23, 2015 in accordance with Eugene Code (EC) requirements. The notice was also sent to neighboring properties and the affected neighborhood group, the Santa Clara Community Organization, and otherwise met the public notice requirements of EC 9.7315. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 2 HO Agenda - Page 2 Following is a brief summary from the minutes of the neighborhood meeting: • Questions and concerns about timing and phasing of the development were fielded. • Questions about the protection of Spring Creek were fielded. • Questions about how many, and where, the street connections would be made to the south. The majority of the time was spent discussing the details of the road network, how many trips would be generated, and how impacts of lights and noise could be mitigated on existing dwellings. Staff fielded numerous phone calls from neighbors of the project. Although one comment was received from a resident north of the development site, the majority of comments were from neighbors to the south, and the majority of these were from residents along Sanders Street (five separate residents). The concerns of the residents along Sanders Street focus on traffic impacts. These are summarized by Sanders Street resident Cheri Smith's following comments: The main concern I have concerns the connecting of a new city road i.e. Addyson Creek subdivision to existing county private local access roads of Sanders, Stark and Argon. Currently the maintenance of these local access roads are the responsibility of the residents who border those roads. There are no curbs or sidewalks on these roads and they currently serve less than 24 residences. This proposal would feed traffic from 100 homes onto these local access roads with no plans of improvement from the developer.... Their connection plan shows a city street dumping traffic into the middle of Stark and Sanders Sts into existing home fronts... Why doesn't the city see this as incompatible with existing homes? Why is a new city street being allowed to impact the considerably older county access roads with no debate? Some residents also expressed concern about the elimination of trees and an open space resource, and the lack of any additional parkland dedication. Again, resident Cheri Smith's comments exemplify this concern: When the other half of this orchard was developed years ago there was the inclusion of a city park for that division. It does not allow off leash dogs. There is nowhere within miles for this neighborhood to access an off leash dog park. Our neighborhood is being changed radically and we are being offered nothing in the return for the increased unwanted traffic, light pollution and noise that comes with more than 100 homes where trees only stand now. Traffic concerns are addressed under the tentative subdivision street standards and public improvements criteria in this staff report, as well as the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis. Philip Richardson from Eugene Parks and Open Space (POS) also provided the following insights relative to the consideration of parks at the site: POS discussed various options with the original owner before the property started into the subdivision process, including acquiring the entire site. However, given limited funds Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 for acquisition and other high priority acquisition targets, limited maintenance funds, that the neighborhood was served by an immediately adjacent Neighborhood Park and a nearby Community Park site, and given that the site did not specifically appear in previous plans or priorities, POS did not pursue acquisition at that time. After the property changed hands, POS discussed with the new owner's engineering firm the possibility of acquiring parcels immediately south of Filbert Meadows Park and a few additional parcels that would connect the extended park to the creek corridor. The intention of looking at these parcels was to increase the street frontage for the park, improve security, avoid creating a residential backyard fence interface on the south side of the park and to allow a walking connection from the creek corridor to the park. The cost to acquire all the finished parcels necessary to achieve these goals was judged to be much too high in proportion to the funds available and the value added to the park, so POS has not pursued the discussion further. Written comments submitted by the public as of the date of this staff report were assembled by staff and included as Attachment D. One neighbor, Doug Bryant, started a petition, "Save the Orchard in Eugene (Santa Clara)" which, at the writing of this staff report, had solicited just over 300 signatures. Petitioners could leave brief comments. A sample of these is provided in Attachment D, but the full list can only be viewed online (URL included in Attachment D). The petition mostly conveys the value that the neighborhood has obtained from the subject property as open space and a desire to maintain all, or some portion of it, as such. Any additional comments will be included in the record. Additional referral comments were provided by various City staff, and other service providers. Those comments are addressed in the following evaluation with respect to applicable approval criteria and are included in the application file for reference. Relevant information items and referral comments are also attached to the end of this report for the Hearings Official and applicant's benefit (see Attachments C & J). Zone Change Evaluation Based on the available information in the application and the following findings, the proposed zone change will comply with all applicable zone change approval criteria at EC 9.8865. The approval criteria are listed below in bold, with findings addressing each: EC 9.8865(1): The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The proposed zone change is from a base zone of AG Agricultural to R-1 Low-Density Residential. The Metro Plan land use diagram shows a large area of land designated for low- density-residential use (LDR) encompassing the area of the subject property, which makes it clear that the subject property has a parcel-specific LDR plan designation (see Metro Plan, Page II-G-2). The requested zone change from AG to R-1 will bring the property into compliance with the plan designation. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 4 HO Agenda - Page 4 The following Metro Plan policy is relevant to this proposal: A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies, however, existing agricultural zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until rezoned for urban uses. Although this policy is not a mandatory approval criterion for the zone change, the requested zone change fulfills this policy, and there do not appear to be any other Metro Plan policies that would serve as mandatory approval criteria in this instance. As such, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. EC 9.8865(2): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. The River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan is the applicable adopted refinement plan for the area of the applicant's request. The land use diagram of the refinement plan shows the area to be designated for low-density residential use, consistent with the Metro Plan. The subject property is also within Subarea L of the refinement plan, which includes several recommendations (see page 2-35 of the plan). The applicant's proposal for R-1 zoning is consistent with those recommendations, which call for low-density residential use in this area. As such, the proposed zone change is also consistent with the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. EC 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the uses and densities that will be allowed in the proposed R-1 zone can be served consistent with the above criterion. Key urban facilities and services were also evaluated as part of the recent annexation application for the subject property, which confirmed that wastewater, stormwater, streets, solid waste, water and electric, public safety, parks and recreation, planning and development services, communications, and public schools can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. City Council Resolution No. 5128 (Feb. 23, 2015), approving the annexation, includes detailed findings about the availability of urban facilities and services. Additional details about the available services and facilities, to be extended to serve the applicant's proposed subdivision, are further addressed in the Public Works referral comments and the following tentative subdivision evaluation. EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in... Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 5 HO Agenda - Page 5 None of the siting requirements set out in EC 9.8865(4) are applicable to the applicant's request for R-1 zoning; the existing /WR overlay zone will be retained according to the applicant's request. EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the city to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. This criterion does not apply as the request does not involve establishment of the NR zone. Transportation Planning Rule Goal 12 Transportation, of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation Development Commission (LCDC), must specifically be addressed as part of the requested zone change, including the amplification of that goal in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), specifically OAR 660-012-0060 (1). This proposed zone change is governed by subsection (9) of section 0060 of the Rule, which reads as follows and provides that a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if each of a set of specific requirements are met: (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map; (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and (c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024- 0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. The proposed R-1 zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation of Low- Density Residential, and this designation was in effect at the time the acknowledged TSP was adopted (TransPlan 2002). When the TransPlan was adopted, the subject property was designated Low-Density Residential, and that designation has remained unchanged. The subject property was not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment. Thus, OAR 660-012-0060(9) is satisfied. Based on these findings, the proposed zone change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR, and, therefore, it complies with the TPR. Tentative Subdivision Evaluation Based on the available information and the following findings (as well as recommended conditions of approval), the proposed tentative subdivision will comply with all applicable Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 6 HO Agenda - Page 6 Needed Housing approval criteria at EC 9.8520. The approval criteria are listed below in bold, with findings addressing each; informational items and recommended conditions of approval are included where appropriate: EC 9.8520(1): The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes. Oregon Revised Statutes define needed housing as follows: 197.303 "Needed housing" defined. (1) As used in ORS 197.307, until the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" also means: (a) Housing that includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy, (b) Government assisted housing, (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490, and (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. With regard to ORS 197.303(1), the City's housing needs projection is embodied in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study 1999 Draft Supply and Demand Technical Analysis (ESRLS) and 1999 Draft Site Inventory Document. The City's housing needs projection identifies a need for: • Single-family detached housing, including manufactured dwellings on lots, • Single family attached housing, • Multi family housing, and • Manufactured dwelling parks. In order to establish that the type of housing proposed for development is "needed housing," an applicant must show that the proposed housing falls within one of the housing types identified in the City's housing needs projection or one of the types of housing identified in the statutes as "needed housing." The applicant's written statement confirms that their request is for tentative subdivision approval for an intended 136-lot subdivision for single family housing, which is identified as needed housing within the ESRLS and at ORS 197.303(1)(a), consistent with this criterion. Staff concludes that no further analysis of the proposed housing type is necessary to demonstrate that the proposed housing falls within a needed housing category, and therefore it Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 7 HO Agenda - Page 7 is allowable for the proposed application to be reviewed under the needed housing criteria rather than the general criteria. EC 9.8520(2): The proposed land uses and densities are consistent with the land use designation(s) shown on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, as refined in any applicable refinement plan. As noted above, the property is designated LDR on the Metro Plan and River Road / Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan land use diagrams. The allowed density is "through 10 units per gross acres." Metro Plan at III-G-3. At 33 acres and with 136 lots proposed, the density would be approximately 4 units per gross acre, well within the allowed density range. EC 9.8520(3): The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following, unless specifically exempt from compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone or overlay zone: (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Lot dimension requirements are set out at EC 9.2760, Residential Zone Lot Standards, and require that R-1 lots (corner and interior) have a minimum of 50 feet of lot frontage and lot width (except curved lots which require a frontage of no less than 35 feet). The minimum lot area is 4,500, and the maximum is 13,500 square feet. All of the proposed lots exceed the minimum lot dimensions, as reflected on the plan sheets submitted with the application. Lots 63, 65, 70 and 71, adjacent to Spring Creek are oversized, as they extend to the middle of the Creek and include the creek's Conservation Area. Each lot adjacent to the creek has no more than 33% of its square footage within the Conservation Area associated with the creek. As such, the proposal complies with the 33% limitation above, and the maximum lot size exception is warranted for these lots in accordance with EC 9.2761(5)(d), because it will "enable protection of natural resources." Another oversized lot shown on the plat is Lot 45. The applicant asserts that the oversizing of Lot 45 isjustified under the standard EC 9.2761(5)(a), which says: (5) Exceptions to the maximum lot size shall be granted if any of the following is met: (a) Existing physical circumstances such as topographically constrained lands, conservation easements, existing buildings, or utility easements prevent the ability to further divide the lot. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 8 HO Agenda - Page 8 The applicant states that Lot 45 is oversized due to the presence of the EWEB utility easement, which contains overhead lines that effectively preclude use of the north half of the lot. While that may be true, there is nothing in the Eugene Code or simply due to the presence of that EWEB easement that would appear to actually "prevent the ability to further divide the lot" as required by the relevant language for an exception under EC 9.2761(5)(a). At 21,025 square feet and with ample frontage on two public streets, it appears that the lot could be further divided under applicable lot standards. As such, the following condition of approval is wa rra nted: • The applicant shall include a note on the final plat stating that Lot 45 is prevented from the ability to further divide the lot, in accordance with the maximum lot size exceptions at EC 9.2761(5)(a). With this condition of approval, the applicant's requested exception to maximum lot size for Lot 45 should also be granted. Alternatively, the applicant could request that the Hearings Official consider an exception based on possible future land division under EC 9.2761(5)(b), so long as feasibility is demonstrated by a conceptual build-out plan. Staff also notes that, while the applicant's narrative addresses additional development standards of the WR overlay here under EC 9.8520(3)(a), those provisions are not specific to lot standards or density and are therefore addressed under the approval criterion at EC 9.8520(9), below, as "development standards explicitly addressed in the application." (b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. An evaluation of applicable street standards is provided below. The findings are specifically intended to include only essential information necessary to demonstrate compliance under the needed housing criteria or otherwise support recommended conditions of approval. Where appropriate, key informational items for the Hearings Official and applicant's benefit are noted below or provided as attachments to the staff report. More extensive details regarding various street standards and related permitting processes are provided separately in referral comments received from the City's Public Works staff, as well as Lane County Transportation Planning (see Attachment J). For clarity, staff notes that the County's references in referral comments to "conditions of approval" are not those of the City, or to be established as condition of the City's approval under Eugene Code requirements. The County's authority under Lane Code is distinctly separate from the City's under the provisions of EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875. Staff therefore concludes that those "conditions of approval" actually refer to requirements the County intends to make as part of the subsequent Facility Permit process, which the applicant will need to undertake in order to construct various public improvements within Lane County right-of- way. As such, they are no less important, but simply provided as information items in the context of the City's land use decision under Eugene Code provisions. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 9 HO Agenda - Page 9 EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public Ways Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the proposed right-of-way widths are consistent with EC Table 9.6870, except as further discussed under EC 9.6870, and noted below. As such, no additional right-of-way dedications are required in this instance under the provisions of EC 9.6805. Public Works staff comments confirm that the applicant proposes full width paving improvements across abutting tax lots to the south, including Tax Lot 2301 on sheet 5, Tax Lot 100 on sheet 4 and Tax Lot 2600 on sheet 3, but do not address dedication of right-of-way from these tax lots. The City is not requiring the dedication of the off-site right-of-way across these adjacent parcels; rather, the City accepts the applicant's paving proposal as a means of complying with the code criteria while keeping the applicant's preferred subdivision layout. It is the responsibility of the applicant to implement the proposed public improvements through the PEPI process. EC 9.6810 Block Length As indicated in referral comments from Public Works staff, the proposed subdivision does not comply with the maximum block length (600 feet) for the two following local street segments: • Tyson Lane, Shenstone Drive to Hyacinth Street 760 feet) • Tyson Lane, Boresek Lane to Argon Avenue 720 feet) While the applicant did not apply for an exception to the maximum block length standard, staff recommends that an exception be granted to the block length standard in Tyson Lane, between Shenstone Drive and Hyacinth Street, per subsection (2), since the proposed block length is fixed by the existing locations of Tyson Lane and Shenstone Drive and by existing residential development on lots to the north. Public Works staff also recommends that an exception be granted to the block length standard in Tyson Lane, between Boresek Lane and Argon Avenue, per subsection (4) because a strict application of the 600-foot requirement would not cause significant changes to traffic patterns or circulation to the north or south and would not result in a street network that is more beneficial to vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians or emergency vehicles. EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets Although the applicant has requested exceptions to the street connectivity standards, Public Works staff confirms that exceptions to the street connectivity standards are not required in this instance. The proposed subdivision demonstrates compliance with the street connectivity standards based on an extensive analysis provided in referral comments from Public Works staff which are incorporated herein by reference (and also available for the Hearings Official to include as findings to the extent determined necessary as part of the decision on the Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 10 HO Agenda - Page 10 application, see Attachment J). EC 9.6820 Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds These standards do not apply since none of the proposed streets that terminate exceed 150 feet. EC 9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Alleys Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm compliance with the applicable standards for intersection angles and offsets, with the exception of the intersection created by Patricia Street and Addyson Lane, which has an 8-foot offset. In order to ensure compliance with this standard, Public Works staff recommends the following condition: • Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan which eliminates the offset at the Patricia Street / Addyson Street intersection or increases the offset distance to 100 feet. With this condition of approval, the applicable standards will be met. EC 9.6835 Public Accessways This standard is not applicable as there are no existing or potential accessways on adjacent sites that dictate the dedication or construction of any additional public accessways. EC 9.6840 Reserve Strips EC 9.6840(1) enables the City to require the developer to prevent access to abutting land at the end of a street in order to assure the proper extension of the street pattern and the orderly development of land lying beyond the street. In order to prevent access to the property located and beyond the southerly terminus of Chelsey Lane, Public Works staff indicates the following condition is warranted: • The applicant shall create a 1 foot reserve strip along the southerly margin of Chelsey Lane (to be renamed in accordance with other conditions of approval as noted below). The reserve strip, which shall be noted on the final plat as a 1-foot Reserve Strip "A", shall be conveyed to the City on a standard City form and recorded concurrent with the final plat. Based on the above findings and condition, the proposed subdivision will comply with this standard. EC 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements There are no special safety requirements necessary to discourage use of the streets by non- Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 11 HO Agenda - Page 11 local motor vehicle traffic. EC 9.6850 Street Classification Map The proposal complies with this standard as confirmed in referral comments from Public Works staff. EC 9.6855 Street Names This standard requires that streets that are in alignment with existing street names shall bear the names of such existing street names. Streets that are not in alignment with existing streets are subject to approval by the Planning Director and shall not necessarily duplicate or resemble the name of any existing or platted street in Lane County. Public Works staff notes that Tyson Lane, Hyacinth Street, Boresek Lane, Patricia Street, Gipson Street, Naismith Boulevard, Byron Street and Countryside Lane are names of existing streets that will be extended through the development site. However, the proposed street names Chelsey Lane and Jordan Lane resemble the existing street names Chelsea Lane and Jordan Drive, both located in Eugene, which are therefore not acceptable under this standard. Likewise, the street name Addyson Street, which aligns with Dean Avenue, does not meet the standard. The following condition of approval is therefore recommended, in order to ensure compliance with this standard: • Prior to final plat approval, the proposed street names for "Addyson Street", "Chelsey Lane", and "Jordan Lane" shall be subject to further review and approval in accordance with EC 9.6855. Staff did notify the applicant of the preference to have them submit alternative street names that would comply with EC 9.6855, and consult with Public Works staff as needed to make that determination, prior to the Hearings Official's decision. EC 9.6860 Street Right-of-Way Map This code section states how the adopted Street Right-of-Way Map is to be applied. No amendments to the Street Right-of-Way map are proposed or required. EC 9.6870 Street Width Referral comments from Public Works staff, incorporated herein by reference, confirm that the applicant's proposed street layout complies with applicable standards at EC 9.6870, with the exception that the applicant proposes to construct the segment of Addyson Street, between Patricia Street and River Road with 40-foot paving in a 69-foot right-of-way in order to accommodate striped channelization at the approach to River Road. As noted in the applicant's TIA findings, the additional channelization and striping at the intersection with River Road is not necessary, particularly since the dominant movement is southbound. Therefore, Public Works Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 12 HO Agenda - Page 12 staff recommends the following condition of approval: • Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to depict 34-foot paving in a 60-foot right-of-way for Addyson Lane, between Patricia Street and River Road. Public Works staff also notes that Argon Avenue, an existing local street, abuts the southerly boundary and has been partially improved through time as developments have occurred to the south. The applicant proposes to dedicate 27.5 feet north of the southerly property line and to complete public improvements consistent with local street standards. Based on the tentative plan, the limits of the right-of-way dedication will begin at the west boundary at Willowbrook Street and extend to Countryside Lane to the east, but will exclude the area between Revell Street and Patricia Street, in order to avoid disturbance of the Goal 5 resource. According to Public Works staff, full width paving improvements are shown on the applicant's tentative plans across abutting tax lots to the south, but the dedication of right-of-way from these tax lots is not shown. Without the additional paving, the paving width in these areas is shown as being 13.5-feet, which is insufficient for two-way traffic and would limit effective emergency vehicle access and fire truck deployment. The City is not requiring the dedication of the off-site right-of-way; rather, the City accepts the applicant's paving proposal as a means of complying with the code criteria while keeping the applicant's preferred subdivision layout. It is the responsibility of the applicant to implement the proposed public improvements through the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process. Public Works staff also point out that on page 4 of the tentative plan, the applicant also shows an apparent right-of-way (20 feet west of Spring Creek and 25 feet east of Spring Creek) which is intended for bicycles and pedestrians, and storm drainage purposes. This proposed right-of- way complies with EC Table 9.6870 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessways. For conformance with this standard and to ensure clarity, staff recommends the following condition: • Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan so that the proposed right-of-way for the bike-ped path is identified as a Public Accessway for Bicycles, Pedestrians and Storm Drainage. Based on the above findings, and with the conditions imposed, the proposed subdivision will comply with applicable standards. EC 9.6873 Slope Easements Since the site is relatively flat, there is no apparent need for slope easements as a condition of approval. EC 9.6875 Private Street Design Standards These standards do not apply because private streets are not proposed. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 13 HO Agenda - Page 13 (c) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. EC 9.6500 Easements (Public) This section authorizes the City to require dedication of easements for public utilities and access under certain circumstances. This section also notes prohibited obstructions within public easements. The applicant proposes to dedicate 7-foot wide PUEs adjacent to each of the streets of the proposed development for utilities adjacent to the public streets. Otherwise, Public Works staff comments that they are unaware of the need for any additional on-site public easements to address present or future public wastewater or public stormwater needs for development of the area (that is, other than the additional public storm drainage easement discussed under EC 9.8520(3)(k), below). EC 9.6505 Improvement Specifications This section requires that all public improvements be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted plans and policies, the procedures specified in EC Chapter 7, and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to EC Chapter 7. The public improvement standards also require the developer to enter into an agreement establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in accordance with the standards in EC 7.280. In essence, all developments are required to be served by and implement infrastructure improvements including water, sewage, streets, street trees, street lights, sidewalks, access ways, and stormwater drainage. As an informational item, Public Works staff notes that an Engineering and Construction agreement is required for the private construction of public improvements and must be submitted when the construction plans are submitted for review and approval. The configuration and size of the public improvements will further be subject to approval by the City Engineer upon review of the design and supporting analysis prepared by the applicant's engineer. In order to ensure compliance with EC 9.6505, Public Works staff notes that the following condition is warranted: • Prior to final plat approval, a PEPI permit shall be issued for the construction of public improvements. In lieu of a PEPI permit, a bond or other financial instrument guaranteeing the construction of public improvements shall be submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City Engineer. Water service for the proposed development must also be provided in accordance with Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) policies and procedures. In order to ensure compliance with this standard, the following condition of approval is also warranted: • The applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It is noted that EWEB Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 14 HO Agenda - Page 14 currently accepts cash payment, bond or an irrevocable letter of credit as financial guarantees. The applicable standards also require all developments to be served by wastewater sewage systems of the City, in compliance with the provisions of EC Chapter 6. As shown on the tentative plan, the applicant proposes to extend public wastewater from existing systems in the west side of River Road (at Dean), in Argon Avenue at Revell Street, Stark Street and Willowbrook Street and from the existing terminus of Tyson Lane at the westerly boundary of the proposed development. Public Works staff confirms that the proposal demonstrates conceptual compliance with applicable sewage specifications, subject to a more detailed review of the mainline construction and service laterals during the subsequent PEPI review process. In addition to the paving widths specified in EC 9.6870, the applicant proposes to construct all street improvements, including curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage and street lights through the PEPI process. In order to avoid damaging sidewalks at the time of development of individual lots, construction of the sidewalks in the proposed streets, with the exception of intersection ramps will be required through the building permit process. Street trees will be provided separately through a Street Tree Agreement with Urban Forestry. As noted in the applicant's written statement, the proposed multi-purpose path, which will replace an existing farm road across Spring Creek, will be a 12-foot wide concrete path connecting Tyson Lane to Patricia Street shall be designed and constructed to City standards through the PEPI. The path is subject to the limitation that it must be fully constructed within the area that is exempt from the Conservation Area adjacent to the Creek (see Attachment 1) and in conformance with the flood plain standards at EC 9.6706 through EC 9.6709. (d) EC 9.6706 Development in Flood Plains through EC 9.6709 Special Flood Hazard Areas - Standards. The applicant's plans show that a portion of the property, roughly parallel to Spring Creek is located within a special flood hazard area (SFHA). Public Works staff confirm that a portion of the property is within Zone A of the flood insurance rate map (41039C-1107-F) produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Development is allowed to occur within the SFHA, subject to compliance with the applicable development standards, which are reviewed during the building and PEPI permit process. Elevating building foundations above the base flood elevation (BFE) is a typical means of compliance. In order to ensure compliance during the building permit process, the boundaries of the SFHA need to be clearly delineated and the BFE needs to be determined during the land division process. Therefore, the following condition of approval is required: • The applicant shall submit the following information on a copy of the final plat, prepared by a certified engineer or licensed surveyor: delineation of the SFHA boundaries with the corresponding FIRM numbers and date; determination of the BFE for each lot (or the most conservative for the entire development) with an explanation Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 15 HO Agenda - Page 15 of the methodology. • The final plat shall include a note stating which lots are within the SFHA and the BFE for those lots. Since this subdivision is over 5 acres, the applicant is also required to provide a detailed hydrological analysis per EC 9.6709(1)(d)(2). The applicant should refer to the FEMA publication, Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas for appropriate detailed hydrological methods for determining a BFE in Zone A areas. Additional detail related to Development in Floodplains is available in the City of Eugene 2011 Public Improvement Design Standards Manual (PIDS). Since Spring Creek is identified as a Water Course, particular attention should be paid to Section B-3 Development in the Floodway and Watercourse Alterations. Based on the above findings, conditions of approval, and future permit requirements, the proposed subdivision will comply with applicable standards. (e) EC 9.6710(6) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. The geotechnical analysis requirements beginning at EC 9.6710 apply because, pursuant to EC 9.6710(2)(b), the proposed development includes dedication and construction of public street, storm drainage, and wastewater systems. The applicant submitted a letter from Poage Engineering which was dated March 8, 2015 and stamped by Donovan B. Mogstad P.E. which complies with EC 9.6710(6), under needed housing provisions, based on the following statement: "The proposed development activity will not be impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the following site conditions: springs or seeps, depth of soil to bedrock, variations in soil types, or a combination of these conditions [and that] standard construction practices are anticipated for the development." Staff confirms that although not required due the needed housing provisions, the applicant also submitted a geotechnical report in anticipation of the requirement at the time of the PEPI review process. The report, which is dated February 5, 2015, was prepared by Donovan B. Mogstad, P.E., Poage Engineering & Surveying, Inc., is dated August 29, 2014. (f) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. These standards are specific to institutional, office, commercial, and industrial developments as described in EC 9.6730(2). These standards do not apply to the proposed residential subdivision. (g) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm, that the proposed development complies with Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 16 HO Agenda - Page 16 public access requirements as all proposed lots have frontage on public streets. Additional review will be required at the time of building permit and PEPI review for compliance with applicable access management standards. (h) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that no special setbacks are required for future right-of-way or public utility easements. (i) EC 9.6775 Underground Utilities. The applicant is proposing that all on-site utilities will be placed underground at the time of development, consistent with this standard. (j) EC 9.6780 Vision Clearance Area. Vision clearance areas are shown on the tentative plans at each of the intersections. Referral comments from Public Works staff note that these standards will be further enforced through the PEPI review and at the time the lots are developed. (k) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance. Staff notes that the applicant submitted a report entitled Storm Water Criteria, Analysis & Preliminary Base Flood Elevation for Addyson Creek Tentative Subdivision, dated February 4, 2015 and a supplemental report dated March 8, 2015, which were prepared by Poage Engineering & Surveying, the project engineer and stamped by Donovan B. Mogstad, P.E. The reports address the applicant's flood control and water quality strategies. Referral comments from Public Work staff confirm that the applicant's proposal will comply with the applicable standards, subject to additional subsequent permitting review. Those comments regarding stormwater drainage standards are therefore incorporated herein by reference (and also available for the Hearings Official to include as findings to the extent determined necessary as part of the decision on the application, see Attachment J). One specific requirement is noted here, which will result in a condition of approval to ensure compliance with EC 9.6796(3)(d). Public Works staff comments indicate that this standard requires the dedication of public stormwater easements over City maintained stormwater management facilities in order to provide necessary drainage from the public right-of-way, provided the City make findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. For compliance with this standard, Public Works staff recommends the following condition of approval (and provides the following findings to address constitutional requirements): Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 17 HO Agenda - Page 17 On the final plat, the applicant shall dedicate a public storm drainage easement downstream from the proposed box culvert over that area lying between the top banks of Spring Creek. It is in the public interest to ensure that the City has access to the public storm drainage system, i.e. Spring Creek, to allow for routine maintenance tasks such as inspection and removal of obstructions that would otherwise block flows, reduce conveyance capacity and increase the potential for flooding. It is also in the public interest to ensure that the City has the ability to perform remedial actions within Spring Creek in order to address erosion issues which could compromise the designed cross-sectional structure of the channel and result in downstream pollution caused by sediment transport. If the public storm drainage easement, which would provide access to the portion of Spring Creek that is located within the applicant's property downstream of the subdivision's proposed outfalls to Spring Creek is not dedicated, the City's ability to inspect the channel and perform remedial tasks within the channel in order to protect the public's interest would be compromised. As such, there is a nexus between the public interest at issue and the requirement that the applicant dedicate an easement. The dedication of a public drainage easement, between the top banks of Spring Creek is roughly proportional to the impact that the proposed subdivision will have on the City's existing storm drainage system. Per the supplemental storm drainage report, the projected runoff that will be generated by the proposed subdivision will be 10.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). As runoff from the proposed subdivision is added to Spring Creek, the City will need to be able to access that public storm drainage system so that the necessary routine maintenance can be performed. Also, in addition to the public interest, the easement will benefit the applicant because, if there are flooding issues within the portion of Spring Creek that is located within the proposed subdivision, the public storm drainage easement will allow the City to address the problem quickly, and potentially prevent damage to the applicant's property. If the City approves the proposed subdivision, the applicant will be able to begin constructing impervious surfaces through PEPI and site development permits, thereby increasing the amount of storm water directed to the public storm drainage system and creating the need for this public storm drainage easement. Accordingly, this is the last opportunity the City has to obtain the needed public drainage easement prior to its need. EC 9.8520(4): The proposed subdivision will not cause any existing improvements on proposed lots to be inconsistent with applicable standards in this land use code. Based on the available information and evidence, the site is vacant except for EWEB utilities and the proposed subdivision will not impact or otherwise cause those improvements to be inconsistent with any applicable code standards. EC 9.8520(5): There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 18 HO Agenda - Page 18 As previously discussed, the proposal includes excavation of the existing creek crossing in the Goal 5 exempt area, removing the undersized existing culvert, and replacing it with a concrete box culvert, to which will be plumbed the stormwater outfalls from the project, and, above the box culvert to install utilities and a 12-foot wide concrete multi-purpose path to City specifications. At issue with this provision is whether the reconstruction of the creek crossing will involve grading of 20% slopes that would disqualify this project from being processed under the clear and objective needed housing standards. The applicant notes that Wildish Construction will be performing the work on the culvert replacement. In a letter from J. White, of Wildish Construction to the property owner, the work of replacing the crossing is described as involving "excavation," not "grading." See Letter from J. White, Wildish Construction, to S. Lee (March 10, 2015), Exhibit M in the applicants materials. The applicant also points to the definition of "development" at EC 9.0500 in the code to establish that excavation and grading are different and distinct activities with different meanings: Development. The act, process or result of developing. As used in sections 9.6705 to 9.6709, any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard. The applicant's narrative explains in greater detail that the proposed reconstruction of the creek crossing will involve excavation and not grading. The existing crossing will be removed with a backhoe or excavator. The reconstruction will involve placement of a concrete box culvert, plumbing of stormwater discharge to that, placement of rock, placement of utilities, and paving with cement. The applicant has also provided dictionary excerpts for the terms "excavate" and "grade" and staff concurs as to the distinction made in this instance. As such, staff agrees with the applicant's conclusion that the limitation precluding grading on slopes greater than 20% does not apply to the proposed excavation activity, and that no other grading on the otherwise relatively flat site would appear to violate the applicable criterion. EC 9.8520(6): The proposed subdivision provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following: (a) Provision of pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation among buildings located within the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 19 HO Agenda - Page 19 (b) The street layout of the proposed subdivision shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the subdivision exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed subdivision lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. Staff concurs with the applicant's assertion and related evidence demonstrating that this criterion is met. Circulation within the site is provided by the basic grid pattern of the streets, and circulation from this site to the surrounding neighborhood is provided by the proposed and existing street network (which includes direct connections between the site and multiple adjacent local public streets, as well as River Road). The proposed subdivision will also disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street, as required. EC 9.8520(7): For areas not included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the subdivision will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following: (a) The proposal complies with EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. The applicant's plans and related materials show that all trees on the site, other than the farm crop of hazelnut trees, have been surveyed and identified by Poage Engineering and Surveying (see plan sheet for Existing Tree Locations, Attachment G). As shown on the plans, the vast majority of those trees are within the water resources conservation area associated with Spring Creek. The applicant has also submitted a tree report by Kyle King, with updates which references tree quality data shown on the plan sheet. See Tree Survey and Evaluation, Kyle King (January 2015). The King report evaluates all the trees consistent with the standards in EC 9.6885(2)(a). Based on its consideration of the tree survey and the King Report, the applicant has determined to: (1) preserve all the trees in the Conservation Area associated with Spring Creek; (2) remove the entire farm crop of hazelnut trees; and (3) remove or leave to the discretion of the lot owners the few other trees (non-hazelnuts) that are outside the Conservation Area. There are no "street trees" on the property. In addition, the applicant's arborist has apparently excavated to determine the extent of the critical root zone for several trees at the edges of the mapped Conservation Area. Tree No. 1687, a two stem maple, is located on the east side of the creek at the center of the property. The calculated CRZ extends far into the adjacent lots. The excavation showed that the critical root zone extends beyond the 20-foot TOHB line but far short of the calculated CRZ shown on the plans. The applicant indicates that the exact footprint of the CRZ will be documented in a separate letter from Kyle King, and if the supplemental report indicates 30% or more of the CRZ is outside the Conservation Area, the applicant proposes the following landscape easement to be shown on the plat and documented in the plat notes: Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 20 HO Agenda - Page 20 In order to protect the Critical Root Zone for Tree No. 1687, Owners of lots affected by the easement area shall conduct no construction in the landscape easement area so long as that tree lives. The applicant also notes that Tree No. 1784 (30" Deodara Cedar) and Tree No. 3210 (22" cedar) are located near the limits of the water resources conservation area adjacent to the proposed construction of a multi-purpose path to replace the existing creek crossing in the Goal 5 exempt area. In addition, EWEB utilities will be located under the new path. The route of the creek crossing and utilities was trenched on April 14, 2014, and showed no roots from these trees in that area. Hence, no special protections are needed for these two trees according to the applicant. Based on the available information and evidence provided, and pending additional confirmation from the applicant's arborist as to the CRZ locations or any additional protections measures that may be needed, staff concludes that the applicable standards will be met. Staff also recommends that the applicant's proposed condition of a landscape easement, if necessary, be shown along with other required notes and fencing details on revised final site plans. (b) Natural resource areas designated on the Metro Plan diagram as "Natural Resource." As noted, the site has Goal 5 resources, but no other natural resources designated on the Metro Plan land use diagram, are contained on the site. EC 9.8520(8): On R-1 zoned property, if the subdivision results in a lot greater than 13,500 square feet in size based on EC 9.2761(5)(b), the application shall indicate the location of lot lines and other details of layout that show future division may be made without violating the requirements of this land use code and without interfering with the orderly extension of adjacent streets, bicycle paths, and accessways. Any restriction of buildings within future street, bicycle path, and accessway locations shall be made a matter of record in the tentative plan approval. As previously discussed, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the provision for maximum lot size exceptions in a few instances. None of the exceptions are granted based on EC 9.2761(5)(b), thus no additional analysis is needed under this criterion. EC 9.8520(9): The subdivision complies with development standards explicitly addressed in the application or is granted adjustments thereto pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code. Water Resource Conservation Overlay Zone MR) The applicant's materials explicitly address requirements of the WR overlay zoning, and to the extent that staff agrees with the applicant's analysis, portions of their narrative are included below, for the Hearings Official's benefit and ease of reference. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 21 HO Agenda - Page 21 The subject property has the /WR Water Resources overlay zone, EC 9.4900 et seq., due to the presence of Spring Creek, which is a Goal 5 resource identified in the "Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan," as adopted by Ordinance No. 20351 (Nov. 14, 2005) ("Goal 5 Plan"). The Goal 5 Plan identifies Goal 5 Water Resource Sites, which are defined in EC 9.0500 as: Goal 5 Water Resource Site. As used in EC 9.4900 to 9.4980 and 9.8030(21), the resource site as identified in the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan. For riparian corridor and upland wildlife habitat sites, the Goal 5 Water Resource Site includes the stream and riparian areas that may extend beyond applicable conservation setbacks. Wetland sites include only the wetland, itself. There are two distinct and protected Goal 5 resources on the site related to the creek. First, Spring Creek is in a Category D Riparian Corridor, Site E58D, with a 20-foot Conservation Setback from the Top of High Bank ("TOHB"). See EC 9.4920(1)(c)1. Second, the stream bottom contains Category B wetlands, Site RSC38, which is protected by a 25-foot buffer measured from the edge of the wetland, which the applicant's consultant found to be the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM"). See EC 9.4920(2). The applicant's approach to determining the footprint of the protected Conservation Area is summarized below: 1. Identify the footprint of the "Resource Site" and depict it on the Surveyed Site Plan of the property. 2. Apply the 20-foot Conservation Setback associated with the top of high bank (TOHB) and depict it on the Surveyed Site Plan of the Property; also apply the 25- foot wetland buffer where it is greater. 3. Determine whether/how much of the existing stream crossing is exempt from the provisions of the /WR zone, and depict that on the Surveyed Site Plan. 4. Plan the tentative subdivision consistent with the provisions of the /WR zone. These topics are addressed in more detail below. The Conservation Area is mapped as the greater of the 25-foot setback from the OHWM in the creek or the 20-foot setback from the TOHB. That is the extent of the Conservation Area on the site. The existing stream crossing near the north end of the site is exempt from the /WR regulations because it is a graveled road serving adjacent structures, specifically the EWEB substation and related infrastructure. 1. Identify the footprint of the "Resource Site" and depict it on the Surveyed Site Plan of the property. The official maps for the resource sites on the subject property are shown in Section III of the City's Goal 5 Plan. Map 13B of the Goal 5 Plan (see Attachment E) shows the level of map detail that was adopted as part of that plan for both the riparian and wetland resource. A digital interpretation of these Goal 5 resources against the City's aerial imagery and spatial taxlot data is presented in Figure 1. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 22 HO Agenda - Page 22 In Figure 1, the Goal 5 plan maps are applied (for general reference) to the City's digital tax lot data base with an aerial photo overlay. The Site Plan, in contrast, must be based on current survey data. In other words, the generalized Goal 5 resource maps must be accurately reconciled to a surveyed map of the property. The Hearings Official Decision for Alder Woods (PDT 07-5) (Sept. 10, 2008); outlines a basic methodology and establishes several "rules of the road" for applying the Goal 5 Plan (reconciling the plan depiction of Goal 5 resources) in such instances. This process for identifying the resource site is outlined below: (1) The city has the initial burden under state law to identify the standards and review the application against those standards. That means the city must identify the Resource Site and explain the methodology it used to establish it. The City's Goal 5 inventory (as shown in Attachment E) identifies the boundaries of the /WR resource sites on the subject property at a fairly course level. In the Alder Woods case, the Eugene Planning Commission characterized the Goal 5 inventory of resource sites as a "generalized delineation." The applicant disagrees with the City's generalized representation of the resource site and "top of bank." Thus, the applicant has the burden of showing why the Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 23 HO Agenda - Page 23 Figure 1: Map Representation of Goal Riparian Area Site E581D, and Goal 5 wetland Site RSC38. resource area is misidentified, and, correspondingly, must explain why the proposal meets the applicant's view of the standard (that, given the boundaries of the /WR resource site, the proposed conservation setback is consistent with the setback methodology set out in EC 9.4920). (2) The Goal 5 Plan maps are ambiguous, due to their scale. They are to be interpreted in conjunction with the text of the Goal 5 Plan, that is, "interpretations of ambiguous boundaries of the resource area should include the features that define the site." Upon appeal of the Alder Woods application, the Planning Commission generally agreed with the methodology of the Hearing Official, but changed the application of that methodology slightly. The Commission said: The Planning Commission finds that the correct process for delineating the Goal 51WR boundary is to: a) Begin with a generalized delineation of the /WR site boundary based on the applicable map of "Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites" in Section 111 of the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan. b) If the delineation of the/WR Site boundary under (a) is not precise enough to determine compliance with applicable criteria and standards [FN1 omitted] or is otherwise unsatisfactory, the next step is to arrive at a more precise depiction of the resource site boundary by relating the applicable text of the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan to site-specific evidence regarding the site's condition in 2005 (when the City adopted the Plan). This may result in a site boundary determination that is noticeably different from that in (a). In the Alder Woods case, the Planning Commission reached the conclusion that the evidence regarding the condition of the riparian corridor and surrounding area, historically and in the recent past, was sufficient to establish that the site's condition in 2005 was such that certain areas did not meet applicable Goal 5 criteria. Therefore, those areas were not included within the boundary of the resource site. As in the Alder Woods case, the applicant for Addyson Creek is dissatisfied with the "generalized delineation" of the resource sites on the subject property. The applicant looked to the Goal 5 Plan text for guidance, as the Hearing Official and Planning Commission did in the Alder Woods case: Goal 5 Tier One Criteria There are 9 "Tier One Criteria" in Section II of the Eugene Goal 5 Plan against which each Resource Site was (is) rated. The entirety of Spring Creek is a single Riparian Site in the Goal 5 Plan - Site E58D. The Goal 5 Plan page listing the Tier One Criteria is attached as Exhibit G to the applicant's materials. The entirety of Spring Creek is rated in Section III of the Goal 5 Plan as having the presence of Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 24 HO Agenda - Page 24 Criteria 1, 3, 4, 9 and 7 (for a part). Section IV of the Goal 5 Plan shows that this reach of the creek does not meet Criterion 7. So, that leaves the other four Criteria as being text of the Plan to be consulted to resolve the ambiguity about boundary of the Resource Site. Field data were collected to determine the footprint of the four Tier One Criteria described in the Goal 5 Plan as present on this site. The applicant's representatives from Poage Engineering & Surveying located the top of high bank (TOHB) and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). These data are presented on the site plan sheets. See the applicant's Existing Natural Features sheet (Attachment F to this staff report). Terra Science, Inc. conducted a site investigation related to wetlands, the creek conditions, and the character of the adjacent land. See Wetland Delineation Report for Karoline Wolf Parcel, Terra Science, Inc. (Dec. 2014) ("Terra Science Environmental Report"). Looking to the relevant text in Criteria 1, 3, 4 and 9 indicates the following: • Criterion 1: Areas mapped as wetland on the State/National Wetland Inventory (S/NWI). This criterion is met. The Terra Science Environmental Report found all wetlands on the site to be in the creek, which is consistent with the published maps, and with the Goal 5 Plan map. Terra Science Environmental Report at pages 2-4. The 25-foot wetland buffer, measured from the OHWM, extends a few feet beyond the 20-foot setback from the TOHB in only a few places where the bank of the creek is unusually steep (Terra Science Environmental Report at pg. 5). The Terra Science Environmental Report found no wetland conditions present anywhere outside the channel, based on physical inspection of plants and testing of the soils (pg. 3). The 25-foot wetland buffer, measured from the OHWM in the creek, has been shown on the applicant's Existing Natural Features map. • Criterion 3: Undeveloped areas that contain natural vegetation (non-cultivated, including forests, natural prairies, and meadows) and are within sites larger than one acre. Within the subject property the Terra Science Environmental Report found that there is no natural vegetation beyond the TOHB. It explains, as is apparent from visual inspection of the site that the property has been in filbert orchard use for many decades, with cultivated trees occupying the entire site. • Criterion 4: Undeveloped natural areas that are contiguous with a water feature. The Terra Science Environmental Report found that undeveloped natural areas are contained within the creek banks. Criterion 9: Ecologically significant areas identified by local experts in the natural resource sciences, such as wildlife biology, botany, fisheries, hydrology, and landscape architecture. The Terra Science Environmental Report explains: "This criterion is not met since the natural Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 25 HO Agenda - Page 25 vegetation situated between opposite top of banks for Spring Creek is not ecologically significant." The applicant has provided evidence that supports a conclusion that this site, as a whole, reflects a stability of natural conditions that has persisted for decades. The applicant has investigated and provided information regarding the estimated site of the former farm house on the subject property. This is shown on the Existing Tree Locations sheet (Attachment G to this staff report), with its location verified in the field through evidence of dwelling foundation and other construction debris. The applicant also submitted a graphic showing the approximate location of the former dwelling on the east bank of the creek in the middle of the site (Attachment H to this staff report). The location of the old farm house is further evidence that the depiction of a "bump-out" of riparian corridor in the generalized Goal 5 Plan Map 1313, has not historically contained riparian characteristics. This is supported by the fact that the majority of the site is an overly mature filbert orchard. Staff also notes the absence of evidence of material change in the decade since the Goal 5 inventory was adopted for this site, or otherwise contrary to the applicant's information. 2. Apply the 20-foot Conservation Setback associated with the TOHB and depict it on the Surveyed Site Plan of the Property; also apply the 25-foot wetland buffer where it is greater. For the Riparian Corridor, the TOHB, as defined by the code, was located in the field and surveyed, and the 20-foot Conservation Setback was measured from that point. The 25-foot wetland buffer from the OHWM was also located in the field. The greater of the two distances is shown on the Existing Natural Features plan sheet (Attachment F to this staff report). The "Resource Site," as defined in the Code at EC 9.0500, is the stream and the wetland it contains in the bottom. The Conservation Area, as defined in EC 9.4920, extends to 20 feet from the TOHB and, in a few areas, several feet beyond that to encompass the 25-foot wetland buffer. This protected area is shown on the Existing Natural Features plan sheet. For clarity, staff recommends the following condition of approval, applicable to references to the conservation setback on the applicant's plan sheets: • The applicant's final site plans shall be revised to clearly label and refer to the proposed collective riparian area and wetland setback line as the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line." This condition will help to ensure compliance with applicable WR overlay standards, and avoid potential confusion on the part of staff or the applicant's contractors based on other notes and references ("NR setback" etc.), at the time of development. 3. Determine whether/how much of the existing stream crossing is exempt from the provisions of the /WR zone, and depict that on the Surveyed Site Plan. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 26 HO Agenda - Page 26 EC 9.4920(5) exempts certain historic improvements (i.e. prior developed areas) from the protected Conservation Area. That section says: (5) Areas which the applicant has shown to have been developed prior to November 14, 2005, are excluded from /WR conservation areas. For purposes of this subsection, "developed" means within the footprint of a legally constructed: (a) Building, or other substantial structure constructed on a concrete foundation; (b) Permanent dwelling (including manufactured dwelling) constructed without a concrete foundation, (c) Permanent deck or patio that is attached to a structure listed in subsection (a) or (b) above, or (d) Paved or gravel parking area, road, or driveway that serves uses in an adjacent building or structure listed in subsection (a) or (b) above. Fences and landscaping do not cause an area to be "developed" to warrant exclusion from the /WR conservation area. The creek crossing has been in existence since well before 2005 and staff believes it qualifies as an exemption to /WR standards within the scope of subsection (5)(d), as a graveled road that crosses the Conservation Area and that serves a substantial structures meeting the above criteria. The footprint of the crossing through the Conservation Area is specifically delineated on the subdivision plan sheets (see Existing Natural Features sheet, and Site Plan for Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Creek Crossing; Attachments F & I to this staff report). The plan sheets also show the test pits dug in the creek crossing and its approach road, which evidence the presence of gravel in the creek crossing. This crossing is included in EWEB's easement for access to its power line. See EWEB Easement, Lane County Instrument No.61731, recorded April 24, 1969, Exhibit H in the applicant's materials. The creek crossing allows EWEB to operate maintenance vehicles from the EWEB substation on River Road and along the entire length of the power line easement. EWEB has explained that the creek crossing continues to be needed. See Email from Mel Damewood, EWEB, to Steve Lee (Jan. 20, 2015), Exhibit I in the applicant's materials. The EWEB substation can objectively be considered a "building, or other substantial structure constructed on a concrete foundation." EWEB also has power poles in the easement area along the north property line which have concrete foundations. Both the EWEB building and the EWEB power poles constitute "structures" as defined by the code at EC 9.0500. Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, staff concurs with the applicant's assertion that the footprint of the creek crossing and its approach road through the Conservation Area, as shown on the subdivision plan sheets, are excluded from the /WR Conservation Area (see Attachment G to this report, the Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Sheet). If the Hearings Official ultimately agrees that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 27 HO Agenda - Page 27 the creek crossing is exempted from the /WR overlay regulations, staff agrees with the applicant that the zoning would allow it to be replaced in the same or smaller footprint without compliance with the regulations of the /WR overlay zone that would otherwise apply in the Conservation Area. The applicant proposes to rebuild this crossing as a culverted, public, multi-purpose path, with an improved 12-foot concrete travel surface, that is adequate to convey predicted stormwater, and provide access across the creek for pedestrians, bicycles, emergency vehicles, and EWEB vehicles. The crossing site is also proposed to be the discharge point to the creek for treated stormwater from most of the project site. Without the exemption as asserted by the applicant, the /WR overlay zoning would otherwise require a Type II land use application for Standards Review (which has not been included in the applicant's concurrent request). While staff does concur with the applicant's demonstration and site plan depiction of the area exempted from /WR overlay provisions, with proposed replacement of the existing culvert to develop a 12-foot concrete travel surface (and other associated uses, utilities and improvements), the following conditions of approval are warranted in the absence of Standards Review approval: • All excavation and construction, and any related impacts shall be limited to the area within the footprint of the delineated /WR exemption as shown on the applicant's "Site Plan for Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Existing Crossing." • Protective fencing shall be installed at the boundary of the exempted area as shown on the site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City staff. • The required protective fencing shall be installed prior to any construction related activity or other impacts, and to remain in place until completion of any construction related activity for the proposed development. These conditions are necessary to ensure that the applicant does not violate the prohibited practices within the remaining WR conservation area, such as filling, grading and excavating, as specifically listed at EC 9.4930(4)(f). Staff also recommends that the Hearings Official clearly specify that these requirements must be included on revised final site plans, and included within a required performance agreement consistent with EC 9.7025. This will ensure the City has enforcement authority in the event of any violation of the conditions or related /WR overlay standards that remain applicable outside the exempted creek crossing. 4. Plan the tentative subdivision consistent with the provisions of the /WR zone. The tentative plan proposes that the lots adjacent to Spring Creek extend to the middle of the creek. Thus, portions of these lots will be subject to the conservation measures and use restrictions that come with the /WR zone. No lot will have more than 33% of its square footage Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 28 HO Agenda - Page 28 in the Conservation Area. Some of the lots will exceed the 13,500 total square footage limitation, due to inclusion of the creek and Conservation Area. These oversized lots are justified under the code standards that apply, as discussed elsewhere in this staff report. In this case, while the application is proposed under needed housing approval criteria, the applicant's materials and extensive analysis as discussed above very clearly demonstrate the applicability of the /WR overlay requirements that operate independently of the needed housing criteria for the proposed subdivision. The applicant appears to have very carefully avoided potential new impacts to the existing creek and associated natural resources on the subject site, but does not propose any measures to ensure that the area within the remaining boundary of the regulated WR conservation area will be protected from construction related activity or other impacts that would violate the WR conservation area regulations. As such, the following additional condition is warranted: • Protective fencing shall also be installed at the boundary of the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line" as shown on the applicant's revised final site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City staff. With the conditions of approval discussed above, and based on all the available evidence, the proposed subdivision will comply with applicable development standards of the WR overlay zone beginning at EC 9.4900. Otherwise, the application does not appear to explicitly address any other development standards that would be subject to further review under this criterion. EC 9.8520(10): Where all or a portion of a development site is within the South Hills Study and above 700 feet in elevation, the proposed development shall have received initial approval through the Planned Unit Development process. Where all or a portion of the development site is within the South Hills Study and is between 500 feet and 701 feet, and the development site is at least 4 acres with areas of the development site containing slopes that exceed 20%, the proposal shall have received initial approval through the Planned Unit Development process. This criterion is not applicable, as no portion of the development site is within the South Hills Study. Traffic Impact Analysis Review Based on the available information and the following findings, the applicant's traffic impact analysis complies with all applicable approval criteria at EC 9.8680. The approval criteria are listed below in bold, with findings addressing each: EC 9.8680(1): Traffic control devices and public or private improvements as necessary to achieve the purposes listed in this section will be implemented. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, street and intersection improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic control signs and signals, parking Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 29 HO Agenda - Page 29 regulation, driveway location, and street lighting. As confirmed in referral comments from Public Works staff, the applicant's TIA sufficiently demonstrates that no additional traffic control devices or public improvements are necessary other than what is proposed by the applicant or addressed in prior findings and recommended conditions of approval as part of the tentative subdivision evaluation above. Further details about the adequacy of the existing and proposed street system to handle traffic impacts from the proposed development are provided in referral comments from Eugene Public Works and Lane County Transportation Planning, and are incorporated herein by reference (and also available for the Hearings Official to include as findings to the extent determined necessary as part of the decision on the application). As noted previously, the Facility Permit requirements for improvement of adjacent streets under Lane County's jurisdiction are provided as informational items only in the context of the City's land use decision-making process. EC 9.8680(2): Public improvements shall be designed and constructed to the standards specified in EC 9.6505 Improvements - Specifications. The requirement of improvements based on a traffic impact analysis does not negate the ability of the city traffic engineer to require improvements by other means specified in this code or rules or regulations adopted thereunder. As discussed in the tentative subdivision evaluation above, all the public improvements under City jurisdiction will be constructed in accordance with EC 9.6505, as required. EC 9.8680(3): In addition to the above criteria, if the Traffic Impact Analysis Review was required based on EC 9.8670(4), the improvements shall also address the structural capacity of the street in the County's jurisdiction and address identified structural deficiencies, or reduction in the useful life of existing street structures related to the proposed development. Improvements may be needed to eliminate the identified structural deficiencies and to accommodate vehicle impacts to structures. The development abuts transportation facilities under the jurisdiction of Lane County, but the Traffic Impact Analysis was not required based upon EC 9.8670(4). Therefore, this criterion does not apply. EC 9.8680(4): In addition to the above criteria, if the development is located within the S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone, any increased traffic the development would generate on streets within the Fairmount neighborhood to the south of the Walnut Station Special Area Zone shall be mitigated through the use of traffic calming strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage such traffic. The development is not located within the S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 30 HO Agenda - Page 30 Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings and approval conditions listed below, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to R-1/WR Residential with Water Resources overlay, and the concurrent applications for tentative subdivision and traffic impact analysis. Staff also recommends that the Hearings Official clearly specify that the requirements of the conditions of approval must be included on revised final site plans, and included within a required performance agreement, consistent with EC 9.7025. Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following close of the public record, the Eugene Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny this application. The decision shall be based upon and be accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. Recommended Conditions of Approval : 1. The applicant shall include a note on the final plat stating that Lot 45 is precluded from further land division in accordance with the maximum lot size exceptions at EC 9.2761(5)(a). 2. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan which eliminates the offset at the Patricia Street / Addyson Street intersection or increases the offset distance to 100 feet. 3. The applicant shall create a 1 foot reserve strip along the southerly margin of Chelsey Lane (to be renamed in accordance with other conditions of approval as noted below). The reserve strip, which shall be noted on the final plat as a 1-foot Reserve Strip "A", shall be conveyed to the City on a standard City form and recorded concurrent with the final plat. 4. Prior to final plat approval, the proposed street names for "Addyson Street", "Chelsey Lane", and "Jordan Lane" shall be subject to further review and approval in accordance with EC 9.6855. 5. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to depict 34- foot paving in a 60-foot right-of-way for Addyson Lane, between Patricia Street and River Road. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 31 HO Agenda - Page 31 6. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan so that the proposed right-of-way for the bike-ped path is identified as a Public Accessway for Bicycles, Pedestrians and Storm Drainage. 7. Prior to final plat approval, a PEPI permit shall be issued for the construction of public improvements. In lieu of a PEPI permit, a bond or other financial instrument guaranteeing the construction of public improvements shall be submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide documentation that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the plat. It is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash payment, bond or an irrevocable letter of credit as financial guarantees. 9. The applicant shall submit the following information on a copy of the final plat, prepared by a certified engineer or licensed surveyor: delineation of the SFHA boundaries with the corresponding FIRM numbers and date; determination of the BFE for each lot (or the most conservative for the entire development) with an explanation of the methodology. 10. The final plat shall include a note stating which lots are within the SFHA and the BFE for those lots. 11. On the final plat, the applicant shall dedicate a public storm drainage easement downstream from the proposed box culvert over that area lying between the top banks of Spring Creek. 12. In order to protect the Critical Root Zone for Tree No. 1687, Owners of lots affected by the easement area shall conduct no construction in the landscape easement area so long as that tree lives. 13. The applicant's final site plans shall be revised to clearly label and refer to the proposed collective riparian area and wetland setback line as the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line." 14. All excavation and construction, and any related impacts shall be limited to the area within the footprint of the delineated /WR exemption as shown on the applicant's "Site Plan for Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Existing Crossing." 15. Protective fencing shall be installed at the boundary of the exempted area as shown on the site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City staff. Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 32 HO Agenda - Page 32 16. Protective fencing shall also be installed at the boundary of the "Water Resources Conservation Setback Line" as shown on the applicant's revised final site plans, with written confirmation provided from the applicant surveyor or engineer as to the correct location, and subject to inspection and verification by City staff. 17. The required protective fencing shall be installed prior to any construction related activity or other impacts, and to remain in place until completion of any construction related activity for the proposed development. Attachments The following attachments are provided, as relevant excerpts of the public record, for ease of reference based on the staff report: A: Vicinity Map B: Reduced Version of Applicant's Tentative Site Plan C: Information Items (from referring agencies and departments) D: Written Testimony from the neighbors Map 13B of the Goal 5 Plan Existing Natural Features Sheet G: Existing Tree Locations H: Map of estimated location of former farmhouse and barn I: Site Plan for Spring Creek and Goal 5 Exempt Creek Crossing J: Referral Comments from Eugene Public Works and Lane County Transportation Planning The full record of materials considered as part of this application is available for review at the Planning Division. Copies or of these additional materials can be provided upon request. The Hearings Official will also be provided with the full record of materials for review, and the application file will also be made available at the public hearing. For More Information: Please contact Jacob Callister, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682- 5317; or by e-mail, at: jacob.l.callister@ci.eugene.or.us Addyson Creek (Z 15-3, ST 15-2 & TIA 15-1) Page 33 HO Agenda - Page 33 Addyson Creek (Z 15-3/ST 15-2/TIA 15-1) 17-04-02-31/01500 Zone change from AG Agricultural to R-1 Low Density Residential, tentative subdivision to create 136 lots, and traffic impact analysis Attachment A AM Ln ; 0, - - -i ~O . I _ ~ I it BI T ® Subject Site A HO Agenda - Page 34 N o 0 a z ma' z€c, ~ q = m' E z u z ~h d o~ f~Z f Ix o Iv i P a F Z 8 E x.~ s ~ =f §a x ~ g ~ z ~ m § s P. g C 3 K I 4 8- (m a 'x Attachment B 06 0'-ffi -,Z F _ `'^i S 8 € g ~ N 8 n~ m 3i T7 Ps-- _ 9x R M g > ;iM n H -9 6 _ r 9 IAN N, hi Z ~ o~ ",si Z O N ~ CIS _s c z ~Oo.-`Zi 0 N z O iR HN. h--1 O Oy.pm m> O =gym=a z o a y O F _ 2Z~ mg9 J ~ , fa y f O O o TABLE OF CONTENTS SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION vs. CITY OF EUGENE and WEST CREEK LLC and SOUTH PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS NO. 2013-004 The filed record may include black and white copies of maps/diagrams/photos originally submitted in color and/or maps and plans reduced from their original size. These materials, in their original color and/or size, will be included in the retained exhibits delivered to the Board on the date of oral argument. Retained exhibits are referred to as "RE" NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE 1. Notice of Decision: Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission on Appeal of Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) and mailing list mailed December 19, 2012 ..........................1 2. Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission on Appeal of Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) dated December 17, 2012 .................................................................................4 3. Summary Minutes for December 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting [DVD of Planning Commission meeting at RE-A] ...........................................................................39 4. Agenda for December 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting .......................................40 5. Summary Minutes for December 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting [DVD of Planning Commission meeting at RE-B] ............................................................................41 6. Agenda for December 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting with the following attachments: 42 a. Agenda Item Summary dated December 10, 2012_ ..............................................43 b. Draft Final Order ....................................................................................................46 C. Site Plan .................................................................................................................82 d. Index of Plamung Commission Record .................................................................85 7. Summary Minutes for December 3, 2012 Planning Commission meeting [DVD of Planning Commission meeting at RE-C] ...........................................................................91 (00082848;1) - I - 35. E-mail from Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, on behalf of Applicant to Becky Taylor, City of Eugene Plamiing, dated August 2, 2012 granting a five-week extension to the 120 clock ................................................................................................................1621 36. Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit A: Public Testimony received between July 25`h staff report and August 1st hearing (PDT 12-1): a. Letter from David Saul dated July 24, 2012 ......................................................1622 b. E-mail and attached letter from Marcus Lanskey dated July 30, 2012 ..............1623 C. E-mail from Kent McIntosh dated July 30, 2012 ...1625 d. E-mail and attached letter from Rita Miller dated July 30, 2012 1629 e. E-mail from Teressa O'Caer dated July 31, 2012 ..............................................1633 f. E-mail and attached letter from Keith Fuselier dated July 31, 2012 .................1634 g. E-mail from Josh and Melissa Barbour dated July 31, 2012 .............................1637 h. E-mail and attached memorandum from Ross Williamson dated August 1, 2012 ...................................................................................................1638 i. Letter from Shirley St. Clair dated August 1, 2012 ...........................................1641 37. Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit B: Applicant's Testimony dated August 1, 2012 ...............................................................................................................1642 38. Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit C: Southeast Neighbors Testimony dated l August 1, 2012 [Color copy at RE-AB] .1644 39. Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit D: photo of sign at hearing dated August 1 , 2012 .1696 40. Hearings Official Agenda dated August 1, 2012 with the following attachments: . 697 a. Supplemental Staff Report dated July 25, 2012 .1699 b. Initial Staff Report dated June 21, 2012 with the following attachments: . 1708 i. Vicinity Map [Color copy at RE-AE] .1744 ii. Reduced Site Plans .1745 iii. Staff s slope maps Color co at RE-AF . .1758 iv. Excerpt of Southeast Area Land Capacity Map [Color copy at RE-AG] .1760 C. Applicant's Supplemental Statement dated June 28,2012 .1761 d. Additional public comments received: i. Letter from Gerald Morsello dated June 19, 2012 . 1773 ii. Letter from Anita Sullivan dated June 21, 2012 .1774 iii. Letter from David Saul dated June 26, 2012 .1775 iv. Letter from Cecilia Forrest dated June 26, 2012 .1776 V. Letter form Karla Snyder dated June 27, 2012 .1780 vi. E-mail from Yvonne Braun dated June 28, 2012 .1781 vii. Letter from Mark Barbour dated July 15, 2012 .1783 viii. Letter from Shirley St. Clair dated July 17, 2012 . 1785 {00082848;t } -6- 41. Notice of Rescheduled Public Hearing with attached map and mailing list mailed July 2, 2012 [Color copy of map at RE-AC] .............................................................................1788 42. E-mail from Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, to Becky 'T'aylor, City of Eugene Planning, dated June 29, 2012 with attachments (attachments are included at Item 43) ..........................................................................................................................1793 43. Applicant's Supplemental Written Statement dated June 28, 2012 with the following attachments: . ....1794 a. Attachment B Lot Renumbering Index ..............................................................1803 b. Alternative Site Plan Sheets L2 and L3 showing 47 lots RE-AD 44. E-mail from Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, to Becky Taylor, City of Eugene Planning dated June 26, 2012 requesting postponement of June 28, 2012 Hearings Official Public Hearing until August 1, 2012 1804 45, Notice of Public Hearing Cancellation and mailing list mailed June 26, 2012 .............1805 46, Tentative Planned Unit Development Staff Report dated June 2012 with the following attaclunents: ............................................................1809 a. Vicinity Map [Color copy at RE-AE] ................................................................1845 b. Reduced Site Plans .............................................................................................1846 C. Staff's slope maps [Color copy at RE-AF] .......................................................1859 d. Excerpt of Southeast Area Land Capacity Map [Color copy at RE-AG] ..........1861 47. Letter from Lisa Gardner, City of Eugene Planning Director, to Applicants Leslie and Martin Beverly dated June 4, 2012 1862 48. Public Comments received May 26, 2012 through June 20, 2012: a. E-mail from Judith Shapiro dated May 26, 2012 1864 b. E-mail from Sarah Winter dated June 4, 2012 1865 C. Letter from Mark Barbour dated June 11, 2012 1866 a Letter from Ross Williamson dated June 11, 2012 ....1868 e. E-mail from Keith Sheldon dated June 17, 2012 ...............................................1871 f. Letter from Shirley St. Clair dated June 20, 2012 1872_ 49. May 25 to June 14, 2012 Referral Connnents: a. E-mail from Neil Bjorklund, Parks and Open Space dated June 18, 2012 1875 b. Referral from Ed Haney, Public Works dated June 15, 2012 1878 C. E-mail from Doug Perry, Fire Marshal dated June 14, 2012 .............................1902 d. Referral from I ristie Brown, Land Use Management dated June 11, 2012 1903 e. E-mail from Will Mueller, Lane Transit District dated June 4, 2012 1904 f. E-mail from Carol Eggleston, EWEB dated May 25, 2012 ...............................1906 50. Public Hearing Notice with attached map and mailing list mailed May 23, 2012 [Color copy of map at RE-AH] .................................................................................................1908 (00052848;t ) -7- To: Becky Taylor From: Ross Williamson 875 Foxboro Ln. Eugene, OR 97405 Date: June 11, 2012 Re: Public Comments Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) Please include this document in the record for PDT 12-1. 1 also wish to be added to the interested party list for this file. Below are my comments concerning the Deerbrook PUD application. These comments are intended to help ensure that the application complies with applicable Eugene Code and state law requirements. I am not necessarily opposed to the development proposal, if it can be fashioned to comply with Code requirements. I have organized my comments by page number of the applicants' May 11, 2012 application narrative. Page 1 - development site This application is submitted by two property owners, West Creek LLC and South Park Assoc LLC. The proposal concerns three tax lots. West Creek owns one tax lot and South Park owns two tax lots. The application makes no effort to evidence any joint ownership or control over the entire three tax lots. Pursuant to the definition of "development site" in EC 9.0500, the application presents two distinct development sites under one application. Therefore, the application must be analyzed as presenting one application covering two development sites - one development site for West Creek and one development site for South Park. This conclusion implicates many criteria, such as the computation of density, slope, street connectivity, and transportation circulation. Although the Code does not appear to offer a definitive answer, I believe the Code does not allow a single application covering more than one development site. For this same reason, the application fails the ownership requirement of EC 9.8310(1). Page 5 - ORS 227.184. Applicants are misinformed about the applicability of ORS 227.184 should the application be denied. The statute allows applicants to submit a "supplemental application" after a denial. The statute does not require the City to approve any development that can be allowed. Public Comments Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) Page 2 Paae 14 - EC 9.8325(1). The applicants submit this application under the "needed housing" criteria of EC 9.8325. Applicants make no attempt to evidence why this application can be processed under needed housing. At page 6, applicants provide context for their decision to file their application under the needed housing criteria, but provide no objective facts as to why the needed housing criteria apply. At page 14, applicants cite to the City's 1999 Residential Land Study, but again, provide no other objective evidence to show that this application meets the definition of "needed housing." From applicants' narrative, it is apparent that applicants base their needed housing request solely on the fact that the property is listed as residential lands within the City's adopted residential lands inventory. The statute requires more. ORS 197.303(1) ("'needed housing' means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels (emphasis added). Nowhere does the application set out the price ranges or rent levels that this development is intended to meet. The application cannot comply with the definition of needed housing in ORS 197.303 without this information. Moreover, if the City has not identified a special need for the type and price-range of housing proposed here, then this application is not an application for needed housing. Rogue Valley Assoc. of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 158 Or App 1, at 6, n 4 (1999) (needed housing as defined by ORS 197.303(1) "consists of specific kinds of residential uses for which there is a legislatively recognized special need"). Applicants fail to cite to any language in the city's comprehensive plan or elsewhere that identifies a special need for dwellings at the "particular price ranges and rent levels" served by the proposed development. ORS 197.303(1). It appears that there is no needed housing in Eugene, as defined by state law. Page 16-17 - buffer Applicants propose a fence around the perimeter of the site. This proposed fence would be within the required buffer, and is therefore not allowed. A fence is not among the allowed materials that may be placed in a buffer pursuant to EC 9.6210(7). The buffer requirement is one for a buffer "along the perimeter of the PUD". Thus, the "perimeter" of this PUD must be made up of the buffer. Applicants' propose a fence along the perimeter of the PUD. The perimeter of the PUD cannot have both a fence and a buffer. The buffer must be free of structures, including the applicants' proposed fence. In addition, applicants' proposed condition of approval on page 17 cannot stand as it would violate ORS 227.178(3). Public Comments Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) Page 3 Page 18 - EC 9.8325(5) slope This requirement provides that there can be no grading on any "portion" of the development site that is greater than 20%. Applicants base their application on measuring slope across the entire development site. They fail to provide evidence showing which "portions" of the development site contain slopes of greater than 20%. The application can only be approved with a condition of approval restricting grading on portions of the site that have a slope in excess of 20%. Applicants' proposal to measure slope across the entire site does not account for the requirement's use of the word "portion". The word must be given meaning. As a result, at the very least, slope must be measured in segments that are less than the entire site. Given a plain language reading, the requirement provides for taking slope measurements throughout the entire site. If any portion of the site (subset of any distance less than the whole) has slope greater than 20%, then the restriction comes into play. "Portion" means less than the whole. "Portion" is clear and objective. Applicants also question whether the term "slope" is clear and objective. Fortunately, the Land Use Board of Appeals has already determined that the City's use of the term "slope" in this very provision meets the requirements of ORS 197.307. Home Builders Assoc. of Lane County v. Rest-Haven Memorial Park, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002). Moreover, this slope requirement is more properly viewed as a performance standard rather than an approval standard. Thus, even if this application is one for "needed" housing, the obligation for clear and objective standards does not apply to this requirement. Home Builders Assoc. v. City of Eugene, 59 Or LUBA 116 (2009). Page 23 - EC 9.8325(6)(c) This requirement requires PUDs with more than 19 lots to take access from more than one public street. The proposal calls for access from one public street, West Amazon Drive. As a result, this criterion is not satisfied as proposed. TAYLOR Becky G From: Ross Williamson <ross@speerhoyt.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:13 AM To: TAYLOR Becky G Subject: PDT 12-1 public comments Attachments: Deerbrook PUD Comments part2.pdf Becky Attached is a memo for the PDT 12-1 file. This memo supplements my prior memo. Ross To: Becky Taylor From: Ross Williamson 875 Foxboro Ln. Eugene, OR 97405 Date: August 1, 2012 Re: Public Comments, Part II Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) Please include this document in the record for PDT 12-1. This. memo supplements prior comments I made in a memo dated June 11, 2012. It appears that the applicants' revised submission has addressed my comments relating to the measurement of "slope" on the property. However, the remaining comments in my June 11, 2012 memo are still applicable to the revised submission. To supplement my June 11, 2012 memo, I wish to expand on two issues: 1) needed housing; and 2) the EC 9.8325(6)(c) requirement that access come from more than one street. Needed Housing Statute defines the term "needed housing." ORS 197.303(1) provides that "'needed housing' means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels (Emphasis added). The applicants believe that this application can be evaluated under the criteria established for "needed housing." In support of this proposition, the applicants point to the City's 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study. Unfortunately, no one cites to a page or provision in that lengthy study that would support the notion that the study identifies "needed housing." After reviewing the entire study, I have found no reference to "needed housing" in the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study. The City's 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study was intended to satisfy the City's Goal 10 requirements to survey the City's "housing needs". The term "housing needs" is not synonymous with "needed housing" (e.g. "needed housing" 96 "housing needs). The two terms are statutorily distinct. "Housing needs" is a general term used in reference to Goal 10, while "needed housing" is a distinct statutorily defined term. The City's 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study was not intended to study or establish "needed housing". Most importantly, nowhere does the study evaluate housing needs in terms of price ranges or rent levels - a necessary element under the definition of "needed housing" under ORS 197.303. The study itself sets out its purpose: This draft report addresses the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, and its administrative rule for an inventory of buildable lands for residential use and a housing needs projection. This report examines the demand and supply of Public Comments Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) Page 2 residential land in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area in the 20-year planning period." 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study at 1. The 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study was adopted by the City through Ordinance No. 20159. The ordinance makes no mention of "needed housing." Instead, the ordinance mentions the true purpose of the study, to comply with Goal 10 requirements as part of a 1995 DLCD approved periodic review work program. Ordinance No. 20159, Recital B. The City findings make mention of "needed housing," but only in reference to a new policy that will require the City to address housing for various income levels. Ordinance 20159, Attachment B at 15. Importantly, the policy referenced in the findings does not actually address needed housing, it only directs the City to address it in the future. It is plainly evident that the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study was not intended to evaluate "needed housing" within the requirements of ORS 197.303. It is also evident - through the total lack of any information on the topic of "needed housing" - that the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study does not in fact evaluate the "need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels." The applicants are wrong to reference the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study as a basis to evaluate this application under the "needed housing" analysis. Until the applicants can point to a needed housing analysis, they cannot take advantage of the "needed housing" criteria. Moreover, a condition of approval cannot resolve the needed housing issue. Where no needed housing based upon price ranges or rent levels are identified in any adopted city planning document, the application cannot be one for needed housing. EC 9.8325(6)(c) PUDs with more than 19 lots must take access from more than one public street. Specifically, the Code provides: The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19." EC 9.8325(6)(c). The applicants' proposed PUD exceeds 19 lots. The proposed PUD calls for dispersing traffic onto one public street, West Amazon Drive. The phrase more than one public street is not ambiguous. As a result, the phrase must be given its plain meaning. In order to meet this standard, the applicant must be able to count to a number greater than one when counting the number of streets that provide access to the proposed PUD. Here, the applicants cannot count higher than one. Here, the applicants take access from West Amazon Drive. West Amazon Drive is one public street. West Amazon Drive is not "more than one public street." EX MIT S CITY OF EUGENE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL, DEPARTMENT To: Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner Date: August 15, 2008 Subject: Needed Housing You asked what types of housing constitute "needed housing" as that term is used in the Eugene Code. The Eugene Code relies on the statutory definition of "needed housing." State statutes define "needed housing" as "housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels." The Land Use Board of Appeals has declared that once a city identifies a need for housing within its urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, any housing types that the city deternnines are necessary to sleet those needs are considered "needed housing." The City of Eugene's housing needs projection is embodied in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study 1999 Draft Supply and Demand Tectinical Analysis and 1999 Draft Site Inventory Document. In addition to the housing identified in the housing needs projection, the City's "needed housing" also includes housing that has been statutorily defined as "needed housing:" whether it is included in the City's housing needs projection or not. The City's housing needs projection identifies a need for: Single-family detached housing, including manufactured dwellings on lots; 2. Single family attached housing; 3. Multi-family housing; and 4. Manufactured dwelling parks. The statutorily defied "needed housing" types include: 1. Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; 2. Governinent assisted housing; 3. Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks; and 4. Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use. Heather O'Donnell August 1 S, 2008 Page 2 Associate Planner The types of housing included in the City's housing needs projection and the types of housing statutorily defiled as "needed housing" constitute the types of "needed housing"' in Eugene. Althouah "needed housing" is not synonymous with "all housing," between the types of housing identified in the statutes as "needed housing" and the "needed housing" identified in the City's housing needs projection, much, if not all, of the housing constructed in the City could be classified as ``needed housing." In accordance with state law, once an applicant establishes that the type of housing proposed for development is "needed housing," the applicant may opt to proceed under the Eugene Code's clear and objective approval standards. In order to establish that the type of housing proposed for development is "needed housing" an applicant must show that the proposed housing falls within one of the housing types identified in the City's housing needs projection or one of the types of housing identified in the statutes as "needed housing," HARRANG LONG GARY R1UDNICK P.C. - CITY ATTORNEYS Lauren iers LAS :abm 00203375.noc;2 ,j & D EBRA LZ ~ -9740- November 11, 2015 TO: BERG-JOHANSEN Erik (Erik. Berg@ci.eugene.or.us) TO ALL CONCERNED With substantial forethought regarding the application for the Chamotee Trails PUD, my wife and I are grateful for the opportunity to submit the following statement of record. Our foremost concern is life safety, followed by safety of property, and then for a viable, coherent neighborhood. With that stated, we firmly believe that the members of the Planning Department and Hearing Officials charged with the oversight of the Chamotee Trails PUD application process and the attendant application of EC 9.8325(6)(c) (the 19-Lot Rule) apply strictest enforcement. Our neighborhood has experienced in the past 18 months severe emergency fire danger that placed all residents of this portion of West Amazon Drive in peril AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING AREA. Evacuation at our current residential density was looking problematic at best, another 10 lots would have compounded the risk Additionally, the State of Oregon, the cities of Eugene and Springfield are currently making open and notorious efforts to inform citizens to be prepared for earthquake and other disasters. These efforts would be directly jeopardized by the proposed PUD given the single ingress/egress situation on West Amazon Drive. Let's not look back on this as a grave mistake. Eugene-Springfield Fire Department's reference to fire sprinklers as a potential work around as a proposed or potential remedy does not seem to meet our concerns, or those expressed by others, regarding adequate access during possible wildfire or other disaster. The applicant indicated that he would place an 8-inch sanitary line to the existing city sewer system. However, it appears that there is no gravity flow from the site so a potential maceration and pumping station would be required for transfer of waste to the city system. An emergency back-up system would be required, creating noise and hazardous storage for fuel. Maintenance agreements and future financial responsibility should also be required, none of which have been discussed nor indicated. We hope the officials involved in the approval process take this real concern into review. As a society we should not jeopardize health and safety in order to mitigate financial loss. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry & Debra Levinson -Branch NtINEERING.= Since 1977 November 12, 2015 Ken Helm, Hearings Official c/o Erik Berg, Assistant Planner City of Eugene, Planning Division 99 W loth Ave Eugene OR 974oi RE: CONTOURING AND SLOPE DESIGNATIONS CHAMOTEE TRAILS PUD (PDT 15-1/ARA 15-13) Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. o6-224 Dear Bill, Per your request, this letter and attached drawing are in response to Mr. Williamson's comments at the Hearings Official meeting on November 4th. The specific comment addressed by this documentation pertains to the contours and areas designated as 20% slopes and over. I have reviewed the survey data and determined that Mr. Williamson is correct. There are areas over 20% slope that were not identified as such on the mapping submitted to date. The area incorrectly mapped is along West Amazon Blvd. The original idea when the project started several years ago was for the area identified by Mr. Williamson to be regraded prior to submittal of the PUD application. The owner's rationale for grading was to deal with a small, likely basalt, outcrop near West Amazon Blvd. The outcrop is an anomaly on the site, which is otherwise not rocky and fairly uniform slopes. With the regrading idea in mind, the mapping did not flag the area as over 20% slope. However, the idea of regrading was eventually dropped by the owner and the change to the submittal plans was overlooked by this office. The contour map submitted by this office to the city failed to flag this outcrop as over 20% slopes. I appreciate Mr. Williamson bringing it to my attention for correction. I have corrected this error on the map that accompanies this letter. I request that this corrected map be included in the record as the base map for slopes. Please note that to ensure driveway access and utilities can be provided to Lots 2 and 3 without grading within the 20% or greater slope areas, an easement for a shared driveway has been added to the subdivision layout. I am also enclosing, as an informational item, a graphic showing the locations of the survey points used for the contour mapping. Since accurate representation of the 20% and greater slopes is critical to this project, I reviewed the survey points and surface modeling to address any possible accuracy issues not flagged by Mr. Williamson. As part of this review, a field visit was made on November loth. Because visual inspections of slope can be misleading, an abney was used during the field visit to further verify slope percentages. As a result of the review, several corrections were made to the EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER 310 51h Street, Springfield, OR 97477 1 p: 541.746.0637 1 f: 541.746.0389 1 www.branchengineering.com Chamotee Trails PUD November 12, 2015 surface model. The corrected surface model is reflected in the contours shown on the attached map. This map also shows the two additional areas of 20% or greater slope along West Amazon as identified in Mr. Williamson's comments. Many of the survey points internal to the project were taken at the base of trees to also provide an inventory, if ever needed, of the trees and their locations. This does have the possibility of creating inaccuracies in the modeling in three ways; it was the influence of these three factors that I was checking for during the review. The first, and least influential, is that the ground immediately at the base of a tree can be distorted due to root upheaval. Second, is that key topographic features can be omitted from the model if adequate ground points are not taken between the trees. The surface model assumes a uniform grade between survey points. Therefore it is important that survey points be taken at places where distinct changes in grade occur. If there are not adequate survey points to define where distinct grade changes occur, a steep area could end up appearing flatter than it actually is. The third possible inaccuracy is probably the hardest to describe concisely. Knowing how many survey points to use to create a surface model requires years of experience. Too many survey points can create "static". In this case, every rock or small bump shows up and the overall ground conditions are masked - essentially a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. However, too few survey points can miss changes in the slope and also end up masking the overall ground conditions. There is no point spacing that will work for all projects. In the case of a site with large expanses of uniform grade, point spacing of 50-100 feet can be adequate. In the case of a site with many grade changes, point spacing of 20-30 feet maybe necessary. Because of how unique each site is, there are few standards that address how to collect survey points for surface modeling. The "United States National Map Accuracy Standards" only addresses error tolerances for the points in relation to the plotted contours. The "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/AGSM Land Title Surveys, Effective February 23, 2011" states that the standard of care is defined by the practice of the `prudent surveyor' in the region. A number of years ago the Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon started writing a "Standards of Practice Manual", but it was never adopted. Review of a draft version shows that the Topographic Surveys section was essentially a duplicate of the discussion above regarding inaccuracy sources. I have attached a resume demonstrating that I have adequate experience to develop a reliable, accurate surface model, identify slopes and calculate contours. Please feel free to let me know if any part of this explanation is not clear. Sincerely, Renee Clough, PLS, PE, AICP Principal Branch Engineering Inc. Encl: Tentative PUD plan, Survey point graphic, Resume Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 2 z~ ~s a~z Uw o Fm ~ ~Wo x~ o z 3 0 0 o A o~ s ' ^~Fo ~3¢N m~_ov+xw N¢W~3 W> NOD3210`3N3Dm _ N o 3J oQ~ ? `210 NOZVNV 'M a W Ao - 00 11101 XVI `£Z-OZ-£0-81 dVh XV-L j and `NV-ld 3/Vlb'1N31 0 a and SlIVIII 3310WVHD NOD3210 `3N3Dm m N v fV u? `210 NOZVNV 'M a LL Z z W Ao~ - s OO 11101 Xb'1 `£Z-OZ-£0-8 L db'W Xb'1 ~ ~ p 0 ~e and `NV-ld 3/Vlb'1N31 ttFVO a and SlIVIII 3310WVHD o ~n ~~~A13 x a~ i1 RENEE CLOUGH, P.L.S, P.E., A.I.C.P. PRINCIPAL, E 541-746-063 ReneeMbranchengineering com Mrs. Clough has been working in the civil engineering and land surveying industry since 2001, specializing in land development projects. She provides engineering and planning services to a variety of public agencies, city governments and private clients. Her experience and knowledge of surveying, boundary calculation procedures and the mapmaking process led her to be qualified as an expert witness for the case of Springfield Utility Board vs. Tana Baker (Lane County Case Number 16-13-11536). Professional Licenses Oregon Professional Engineer (P.E.) #69162, issued 1/10/06 Oregon Professional Land Surveyor (P.L.S.) #69162, issued 11/30/07 American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) #024172 Education BS Civil Engineering, Oregon State University (Graduated 2001) Exchange Student, University of Nottingham, England (2000-2001) Exchange Student, Daido Technical Institute, Japan (2000) Memberships Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon (PLSO): Former Chapter President National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) American Planning Association City of Springfield Development Advisory Committee: Chair Branch Engineering 2004 - Present Other SS&W Engineers, Inc., 2001-2004 Key Project Information Estimate quantity of lots at full development of multiple neighborhoods Client: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Location: Springfield, OR Developed surface model for large undeveloped or underdeveloped properties, then predicted developable lots based on slope ranges. Laurel Ridge Client: Environ-Metal Properties, LLC Location: 301h Avenue, Eugene OR Prepared Existing Conditions mapping, including contours, of steep, heavily vegetated property. BRANCH ENGINEERING, INC. AM WPIanning Memorandum Date: November 12, 2015 To: Kenneth Helm, Eugene Hearings Official From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner, (541) 682-5437 Subject: Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) As part of the initial open record period following the public hearing, held on November 4, 2015, Planning staff offered to have the City Attorney provide a briefing on the "needed housing" provisions in State law and embedded within our local code. That memo is attached and provides a brief summary about the history of Oregon's needed housing statutes, confirms that the proposal does indeed qualify as needed housing and reinforces staff's basis for recommending denial of the proposed PUD under the "19-Lot Rule". Several additional points of clarification are also provided below, in response to issues raised in testimony at the public hearing. Adjustment to Paving Standards vs. Street Connectivity Exception The applicant has requested: 1) an adjustment to paving standards for the unimproved Vivian Drive; 2) an adjustment to the public accessway standard; and 3) an exception to street connectivity standards. Neighbor/opponent Ross Williamson testified at the public hearing and stated that the applicant made "an adjustment request to do away with the connectivity to Vivian Way." Staff would like to clarify that the requested adjustment is related to paving standards, not connectivity. This is easily confused because granting an adjustment to paving standards inherently limits access (or "connection") of the PUD to Vivian Drive. Mr. Williamson also stated that staff "need to either grant or deny the adjustment review request [for paving standards]". In other words, Mr. Williamson appears to believe that staff did not clearly state support and provide findings for the requested adjustments. Specifically, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to EC 9.6505(3)(b)1, which would waive the requirement EC 9.6505(3)(b): The developer shall pave streets and alleys adjacent to the development site to the width specified in EC 9.6870 Street Width, unless such streets and alleys are already paved to that width, provided the City makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. All paving shall provide for drainage of all such streets and alleys, and construct curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street trees and street lights adjacent to the development site according to the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code and other adopted plans and policies. City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 . 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Staff Memo - Page 1 Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) for paving of Vivian Drive. Staff supports the requested adjustment as it is consistent with the adjustment criteria at EC 9.8030(19)(b)2. The reason to grant an adjustment in this instance is the fact that Lots 7-10 will not take access to Vivian Drive, and therefore Vivian Drive will not be impacted by the development. In summary, staff supports the adjustments requested by the applicant, and believes sufficient findings/conclusions were incorporated into the staff report. Mr. Williamson stated that no evidence exists in the record to support an exception to the street connectivity standards. Staff disagrees, and believes there is sufficient information in the record to support an exception based on the site topography. According to EC 9.6815(2)(g)2.a., an exception to connectivity standards shall be granted if "Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law." The primary evidence in support of this exception is the applicant's site plan, which demonstrates that the entire northern portion of the site exceeds 20% slope and cannot be graded to allow for street construction (PUD Needed Housing criterion EC 9.8325(5) prohibits grading on all portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope). Reinforcing this exception are Public Works referral comments, which confirm that maximum street grade permitted in hillside developments is fifteen percent (15%). In summary, it is obvious that a street connection through the PUD to another right-of- way (i.e. Fox Hollow Road) could not be accommodated due to topographic constraints. Finally, Mr. Williamson indicated that the Public Works referral "was not in the record." This referral was in the record before the hearing, but was not posted on the City's website. The referral document has been posted online to avoid future confusion. Slopes Exceeding 20% EC 9.8325(5) states the following: "There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope." At the public hearing, Mr. Williamson submitted a map (Hearing Exhibit #3) that identifies an additional area on the subject property asserted to have slopes exceeding 20%. The applicant's site plans do not recognize this area as having slopes exceeding 20%. Since it is difficult for staff to verify accuracy based on the reduced size of the site plan version Mr. Williamson submitted, staff recommends that the applicant complete further slope analysis and provide responsive evidence and argument as necessary during the open record period to help resolve this issue. Depending on the outcome of that additional analysis and more definitive evidence, whether provided by the applicant or Mr. Williamson, this issue may be a further basis for denial, require lot reconfiguration, or possibly conditions of approval could remedy the matter by identifying and prohibiting grading on certain additional areas of the site. 2 EC 9.8030(19)(b): The paving requirement at EC 9.6505(3)(b) maybe adjusted if the site developer has shown that a street or alley adjacent to the development will not be impacted by the development. City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 . 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Staff Memo - Page 2 Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) Development Potential for the Subject Site The applicant's legal representative, Bill Kloos, indicated his belief that the only way to develop the subject property is through a PUD evaluated under the Needed Housing criteria. This is simply not true. As mentioned in the staff report, a PUD approval on the subject property is possible under the General Criteria. It is also evident that the property could be partitioned under either the General or Needed Housing criteria, without the need for PUD approval. For ease of reference, and to help illustrate the point, the applicability criteria for PUDs are shown below (with emphasis added): EC 9.8305. Applicability. PUD provisions shall he applied when any of the following conditions exist. 1) The proposal is subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to an adopted refinement plan, including but not limited to, property within the boundary of the South Hills Study where all or a portion of a development site is: (a) Between an elevation of 500 feet and 701 feet, and the development site is at least 4 acres with areas of the development site containing slopes that exceed 20%. (h) On property above 701 feet in elevation, except partitions that do not include the creation of a public street, unless an alternate review procedure is approved pursuant to EC 9.9630(3)(a). (c) Above an elevation of 900 feet, except for a land division undertaken by or on behalf of a governmental entity in order to preserve, manage, or expand park, open space, or natural resource areas. 2) The property is zoned with a /PD overlay zone. 3) One or more land uses proposed for the site are subject to review and approval through the PUD process according to the zoning. 4) When requested by the property owner. The subject property fits within the elevation range described in subsection (1)(b) above, and thus would be eligible for partition without PUD approval so long as it does not include the creation of a public street. It is also notable that the applicant could have requested an alternative review procedure under EC 9.9630. These facts are not relevant to the applicable criteria under the current PUD proposal, but nonetheless are provided as clarification to the Hearings Official and other parties for future reference. Further, it should be noted that the needed housing criteria for partitions does include a version of the "19 Lot Rule"3; however, this criterion is only applied when a new public street is required EC 9.8220(5): If the provisions of EC 9.8220(2) require a public street, or if the applicant proposes the creation of a public street, the following criteria also apply: (a) The proposed land uses and densities within the partition are consistent with the land use designation(s)... (b) Provision of pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation... (c) The street layout of the proposed partition shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the sum of proposed partition parcels and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 . 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Staff Memo - Page 3 Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) or proposed. In the case of the subject property, a new public street would not be required, and therefore the property could be partitioned under the needed housing criteria without application of the "19-Lot Rule". Attachments Attachment A: City Attorney Memo - Needed Housing Provisions City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 . 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Staff Memo - Page 4 Attachment A ^.wws City Attorney's Office Memorandum Date: November 12, 2015 To: Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official From: Anne C. Davies Subject: Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1 / ARA 15-13) The city attorney's office provides the following memorandum in response to the Hearings Official's request for assistance regarding the "needed housing" issues raised during the public hearing. Applicant requests approval of an 11-lot (10 buildable lots and one open space parcel) planned unit development (PUD). This memorandum addresses two issues related to the "needed housing" requirements that were raised by parties during the initial evidentiary hearing. First, Ross Williamson, a neighbor/opponent of the proposed PUD, contends that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal qualifies as "needed housing." Second, the applicant asserts that it is entitled to an approval of its needed housing proposal, and that the 19-lot rule, which staff asserts is not satisfied in this case, cannot be applied if it will result in denial of the proposal. 1. Does Proposal Qualify as Needed Housing? Under EC 9.8325(1), an applicant for a needed housing proposal must first demonstrate that the proposed housing qualifies as "needed housing" as defined by state statute. Mr. Williamson argues that the statute, Goal 10 and the administrative rule implementing Goal 10 require a "needed housing" applicant to demonstrate that there is a special need in the community for dwellings at the particular price range and rent levels of the target population of the proposed development. This is simply not how the statutes, rules or Goal work. A. Historical Perspective. The state's involvement in local governments' obligation to provide housing for the state's residents at all income levels dates back to 1979. In that year, LCDC adopted an informal policy statement, the "St. Helen's Policy." That policy was meant to ensure that a city had enough land with appropriate zoning to meet the city's need for different housing types and housing at different costs. The policy also required that standards, conditions and procedures for needed housing be "clear and objective." The rationale behind this latter requirement was to eliminate the practice of local governments using wishy-washy, discretionary standards as a way of rejecting unwanted, low-income housing proposals. The St. Helen's Policy was codified in statute in 1981. See ORS {00184986;1 } Staff Memo - Page 5 Attachment A Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official November 12, 2015 Page 2 197.303 and 197.307. Since 1981, the "needed housing" statutes have been amended several times and LUBA and the courts have ruled on a number of "needed housing" cases. While most would agree that the St. Helen's Policy was intended to provide protections for "unwanted" residential development, the statutes, administrative rules and caselaw have evolved in such a way that almost all housing qualifies as "needed housing." See Rogue Valley Assoc. of Realtors v. City ofAshland, 35 Or LUBA 139 (1998).1 In Rogue Valley, LUBA questioned whether a city could exclude high-cost or luxury housing as a needed housing type. Although LUBA did not directly decide the issue, it did point to language in OAR 660-008-0005(5)(a), which directs that housing needs projections include housing types that are commensurate with all income levels. B. Eugene's BLI and HNA are acknowledged as in compliance with Goal 10. Mr. Williamson is correct that the term "needed housing" is defined by statute as "housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels." ORS 197.303. However, that definition does not dictate that an applicant for a particular needed housing development must demonstrate, in a quasi-judicial proceeding, that there is a specific need for the dwelling type and price range being proposed. First, an applicant for residential development is generally not required to identify the price range of housing being proposed. Accordingly, as a practical matter, that information may not even be available. Further, it is the city's Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) that determines what "housing types," and how many of each housing type, are needed. That analysis is based on background information addressing housing price ranges and rent levels. The price ranges and rent levels, during the creation of the HNA, are translated into particular housing types and the number of those housing types that will be needed to serve the projected demand at different price points. As Mr. Williamson himself asserts, the term "needed housing" is defined in terms of "housing types": "The initial purpose behind that policy appears to have been to foreclose local government attempts to exclude certain housing types that traditionally satisfied lower, moderate or `least cost' housing needs.10 However, OAR chapter 660, division 8, which was adopted in part to `implement ORS 197.303 through 197.307,' appears to take an all-inclusive approach to `needed housing.' 10 This purpose is reflected in ORS 197.307(1), which provides `[t]he availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for seasonable and year-round farmworkers, is a matter statewide concern."' 35 Or LUBA at 148: {00184986;1 1 Staff Memo - Page 6 Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official Attachment A November 12, 2015 Page 3 "As used in ORS 197.307, needed housing means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, including at least the following housing types: (a) Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single- family residential. use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions; and (e) Housing for farmworkers." Once the HNA determines the number of housing types that are needed to meet the demand for housing at different price ranges and rent levels, the price ranges and rent levels fall away. That is why the city's HNA addresses "housing types."2 2 See Residential Lands and Housing Study, Draft Supply and Demand Technical Analysis, February 1999 (RLS): "To identify the long-run market for housing in the Eugene-Springfield UGB, two Oregon consultants, ECONorthwest and Leland Consulting Group, conducted an analysis. These consultants identified and projected the relevant factors and projected the residential demand for housing units by housing type. (See Appendix B, What Is the Market Demand for Residential Real Estate in. Eugene-Springllield?) [Appendix B, the Market Demand analysis referenced above, identifies that income affects the type of housing that is financially attainable, projecting that the lower-middle and low income populations will likely inhabit garden apartments and higher density housing. See pages 18-19 of Appendix B.]*** "In summary, the Market Demand Study analysis indicates that there is a relationship between household characteristics and housing demand and that household characteristics are expected to change. * * * It is also projected that there will be an increase in the proportion of lower- to middle-income households. These new households will increase the demand for smaller and alternative housing products. "For the purposes of this analysis, the results of the Market Demand Study were translated into a range." RLS Page 16. On page 18 of the Residential Lands Study is the table that depicts the 1990-2015 Housing Unit Demand by housing type. (00184986;11 Staff Memo - Page 7 Attachment A Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official November 12, 2015 Page 4 Goal 10 tracks the statutory definition of "needed housing," and provides: "Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and'plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density." The RLS was adopted by Ordinance No. 20159 and was acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 10. The RLS was adopted by Ordinance No. 20159 and was acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 10. Mr. Williamson disagrees, however, that the acknowledgment of the RLS means anything in this analysis. He relies on ORS 197.304(1); which provides that Eugene must meet its obligations under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from the City of Springfield. Because the 1999 BLI was a joint inventory with Springfield, he contends, it cannot provide the basis for the applicant's compliance with the needed housing statutes. Mr. Williamson's argument does not survive deeper analysis. First, his theory would result in a de facto moratorium of needed housing. 'The only adopted, acknowledged BLI the City has to work with is the 1999 RLS. While the City is working on a new housing analysis, it has not yet been adopted, and may not be adopted for some time. If the City cannot rely on the 1999 RLS to identify needed housing types, then there is a void and no needed housing could be built until a new housing analysis is adopted. That certainly was not the legislature's intent when it adopted ORS 197.304. Second, the language of the statute itself disproves Mr. Williamson's theory. ORS 197.304(2) provides: "Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, this section does not alter or affect an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190..003 to 190.130 or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions adopted by Lane County or local governments in Lane County." Accordingly, unless or until the City adopts its own urban growth boundary with its own BLI and HNA, it can and must rely on the existing comprehensive plan. See also D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or App 1, 22, 994 P2d 1205 (2000); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Dundee, 203 Or App 27, 216, 124 P3d 1249 (2005) (under Goal 2, a BLI that has not been adopted as part of the comprehensive plan and acknowledged cannot be used as the basis for future planning decisions). Finally, the fact that the City must rely on the 1999 RLS to determine what "housing types" are needed does not mean that it does not "meet its obligation under [ORS 197.303 and 197.307] separately from any other city within Lane County," in violation of ORS 197.304(1). All that Goal 10 and the needed housing statutes require is that Eugene plan for housing that will accommodate the projected need for housing at different price points. That directive does not require analysis beyond what was done in 1999 to accommodate needed housing types at different price ranges and rent levels. The acknowledged RLS demonstrates that Eugene has satisfied that directive. A previous Hearings Official so found when this issue was raised in a previous case. See Hearings Official decision in Deerbrook, page 9.3 3 The Deerbrook decisions (Court of Appeals, LUBA, Planning Commission and Hearings Official) were submitted into the record by the applicant on November 3, 2015. {00184986;1 } Staff Memo - Page 8 Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official Attachment A November 12, 2015 Page 5 II. Is the HO authorized to deny the proposed needed housing application if, he determines that the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with one or more of the applicable clear and objective criteria? State statute requires that proposals for "needed housing" be measured only against clear and objective criteria. In 1997, the legislature added a provision that allowed a local government to provide for an alternative, discretionary (i.e., not clear and objective) process so long as there remains a procedural track available that contains only clear and objective criteria. Eugene has such a two-track system. EC 9.8325 provides the clear and objective track; EC 9.8320 provides the alternative, discretionary approval track. The applicant in this case has sought approval under the clear and objective track. One of the applicable clear and objective criteria is the 19-lot rule. EC 9.8325(6)(c). It requires that the proposed PUD disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street. Staff recommends denial based on this criterion because traffic will not be dispersed onto more than one public local street. (West Amazon Drive to the north of the proposed PUD is not improved and will almost certainly never provide access for the traffic generated by the proposal because the land has been sold to the City for use as a park.) The applicant counters that the City cannot deny the proposal based on this clear and objective standard. Applicant states: "The 19-lot standard may not be applied to deny development." Applicant's argument appears to be that the City cannot deny a proposal for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, so long as the property on which the proposal is sought is on the City's acknowledged BLI. As far as we can tell, the applicant's argument is two-fold. First, an applicant for needed housing is entitled to an approval based on clear and objective standards; a clear and objective standard may not be the basis for an outright denial. And second, the 19-lot rule cannot be applied to deny the proposed PUD because it is a "prohibition in the guise of a standard." A: The City can deny the proposal based on failure to comply with an applicable clear and objective standard. Applicant is not entitled to an approval. The filing of an application, and review of that application through the adopted city procedures, is the process the City uses to determine whether to approve the proposed development, approve it with conditions, or deny the application altogether. All of those outcomes are an option, whether the proposal is for needed housing or not. As explained above, the practice that the legislature meant to curtail when it codified the St. Helen's Policy was, the use of discretionary standards as the basis to deny unwanted housing development. The goal was not to create a universe where all needed housing must be approved. Rather, it was to provide clear and objective criteria so that the applicant would know ahead of time whether it could expect approval and to preclude decision makers from relying on discretionary standards to deny unwanted housing. In Eugene, where an applicant cannot comply with a clear and objective approval criterion, it can take its chances and apply for approval under the alternative, discretionary track. Goal 10 and the needed housing statutes do not go so far as to require approval of any and all needed housing proposals. {00184986;1 } Staff Memo - Page 9 Attachment, A Ken Helm, Eugene Hearings Official November 12, 2015 Page 6 B: The 19-lot rule is not impossible to comply with in every instance. The applicant relies on a 2002 LUBA case to argue that the 19-lot rule is illusory and cannot be relied upon as a basis for denial. See Homebuilders Assoc. of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 419 (2002). Applicant's reliance on that case is misplaced. Homebuilders involved an approval criterion that a proposed PUD will not "create negative impacts on natural drainage courses" such as erosion, turbidity or sediment transport "due to increased peak flows or velocity." Homebuilders argued in that case that "rain falls on all development, and all water moving across ground carries some sediment, creates some turbidity, and has some erosional component, no matter how minute, and therefore no PUD could possibly comply with LUCU 9.8325(10)." LUBA agreed with the petitioner that, with regard to that approval criterion, "imposing a clear and objective standard that is impossible or virtually impossible to meet is a prohibition in the guise of a standard." The 19-lot rule in this case is not like the stormwater standard at issue in Homebuilders. The stormwater standard was impossible or virtually impossible for ANY applicant to satisfy. That is not the case here. The applicant in this case is unable to satisfy the 19-lot rule. However, that does not mean that the criterion itself is "a prohibition on development under the guise of a clear and objective standard." The 19-lot rule is not impossible to satisfy in all cases, as the stormwater standard was in Homebuilders. In fact, the Hearings Official and the Eugene Planning Commission held that a previous needed housing proposal just up the road from this one satisfied that criterion. See Deerbrook HO decision, page 20; Deerbrook PC decision, pages 31-32; and LUBA opinion at slip op. 19-21. ACD:abm Attachment: Excerpt of RLS {00184986;1 } Staff Memo - Page 10 Attachment A Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land's and Housing Study Draft Supply and Demand Technical Analysis February 1999 i l Staff Memo - Page 11 Attachment A Acknowledgments This study. was conducted by an . intergovernmental-staff team with project managemem-by the Lane, Council of Governments. The :team included representatives from the cities of Eugene. and Springfield, Lane.County,:and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). LCOG prepared this preliminary draft repart, which serves as a preliminary update to the 1991 residential supply and demand. analysis. Members of the project team included-. Jim Croteau, Principal- Planner, City. of Eugene Richie Weinman, Housing and:Neighborhood Development. Manager, City of Eugene Robin Johnson, Housing Planner, City of S:pringfietd Roy B:iirm, Intergovernmental:Relations Coordinator,. Lane County Michael Copeiy, Associate Planner, Lane County Clair Van Bloem, Senior Research. Analyst,..Lane. Council of Governments Sandra_Belson, Associate Planner; Lane-Council of Governments Carol Heinkel, Senior Planner, Lane Council of Governments Preparation of this report was financed through grants to the Lane Council of Governments from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Staff Memo - Page 12 Table of Contents Attachment A ' Introduction 1 Demand Analysis _ Housing Demand 3 Residential "Land Demand 20 Supply Analysis Housing Stock 23 Land in Residential Use .30 Infill and Redevelopment 31 Undeveloped Residential Land Supply. 32 Supply and Demand Comparison Housing Demand Met Through Buildable Lots 49. Housing-Demand Met Through Buildable Land 49 Conclusions- 54 Appendix A Manufactured Home Parks Appendix B What is the Market Demand for Residential Real Estate in Eugene/Springfield? Appendix C Summary Tables of Development Constraints Staff Memo - Page 13 Attachment A Introduction This supply and demand analysis is one product of the Residential Land and-Housing Study. The Residential Land and Housing Study is a work task in the Periodic Review of the Eugene- " Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). This supply and demand analysis updates the 1991 Draft Metropolitan Residential Land Study and is being prepared to update the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan. This draft report addresses the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, and its administrative rule for an inventory of buildable lands for residential use and a housing needs projection. This report examines the demand and supply of residential land in the Eugene- Springfield metropolitan-area in the 20-year planning period. The report is divided into four sections: Introduction, Demand Analysis, Supply Analysis, and Supply and Demand Comparison. The Demand Analysis section describes both the housing demand and land demand assumptions and methodologies. In addition, the results of the analysis are presented. The demand analysis is based on an expected population target for the 20=year planning period. The Supply Analysis section describes the supply of residential land and housing units in the Eugene-Springfield UGB. Both housing stock and existing residential land and buildable residential land are described. The Supply and Demand Comparison -section compares the supply of buildable residential land with the forecasted demand. Staff Memo - Page 14 Attachment A Demand Analysis . Housing Demand To project future demand for residential l-and it is necessary to project the demand for housing for a. forecasted population level. Housing demand was projected by reviewing and making assumptions about the trends in six indicators: population;'average household size; group quarter population; structure type mix; vacancy; tenure; structure type; age of householder; and household income. Population Population projections serve as the basis for identifying the magnitude of demand. The population projections were created for five-year intervals from 1990 to 2015. They are presented for both Lane County and the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan study area. A projection is an estimate of some future condition based on certain rules and assumptions. These projections are. based .on the review of relevant historic trends and relationships that are anticipated to continue in the future. No. attempt has been made to predict minor alterations in natural, technological, political; social, or cultural trends. Consequently, these projections should not be considered predictions, but rather the extension and outcome of historic trends and anticipated conditions and relationships. These projections were prepared using a standard cohort survival method and an -economic component to project migration. The University of Oregon (UO) students were considered a special population and were not included -in the resident population. The model separated population change into components and projected each component independently. The model begins with a ( base population broken into five-year age cohorts. For these projections, 1990 U.S. Census figures were used for the base year. Population projections for Lane County were generated first. This allowed for comparison with other projections and actual birth, death, and labor force data. After county projections were arrived at, the metropolitan base population and civilian labor force was entered. The model was then run for the metropolitan study area. As part of this process, a committee of local experts gathered. This committee consisted of individuals from the Oregon Employment Division, Eugene and Springfield development departments, Eugene and Springfield. school districts, Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce, Springfield Utility Board, Eugene Water & Electric Board, and Metro Partnership. This group offered invaluable assistance in evaluating the results of both the population and employment projections. 3 Staff Memo - Page 15 Attachment A Description of Methodolo~Y _ Components of the Model There are four components of the population model: fertility, mort ality, migration, and a special population. The- fertility -component, which accounts for births, and the mortality component,, which accounts for deaths, combine to determine natural increase. This survives-the population to the next projection period. Net migration is the most difficult component of the model to forecast, and in the -past 25 years, it has had the greatest effect on population change. In this model, it was. assumed that migration is reflected in changes in the size of the labor force.. In this model, the special population consisted of the UO students. The previous projections conducted in 1986 included UO students with the resident population applying fertility-rates and surviving them along with the resident population. However, review of the 1986 projections revealed that including the UO students in the resident population resulted in too many persons in the 30-39 year age group and too many babies being born by 1990. Consequently, the UO students in this model are excluded from the resident population; fertility rates and survival rates are not applied. The students 'are simply added back to the resident population after the resident population is survived- and prior to the application of labor force participation rates. To obtain the student population, the UO was contacted regarding the age and sex.of students and enrollment projections through the-projection period. FertiliComponent To determine the number of births, projected fertility rates are applied to specific female age cohorts. The sum of these age-specific rates is -the total fertility rate meaning the average number of children that a woman would bear during her child-bearing years if she conformed to these fertility rates. Trends in fertility rates were reviewed from 1980 to 1990 in Lane County and the state.- Projected fertility rates were developed for five year age groups between 15 and 44 years of age. For Lane County, fertility rates were developed excluding the student population. The rates- were found to be similar to the state. The total fertility rate for the resident population was 2.1. Mortality Component Deaths are determined by applying projected survival rates to each age and sex cohort. Survival rates represent the probability that a person in a -specific age-sex cohort will survive from one projection period to the next projection period. For example, the survival rate for women aged 30 to 34 is .997 from 1990 to 1995. This indicates that a woman aged 33 has a 99.7 percent probability of surviving to age 38. Survival rates for this projection model were- obtained from the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University. The rates were determined by adjusting the 1989 Life Table of the United States with state of Oregon rates from 1989 to 1991. E 4 Staff Memo - Page 16 Attachment A l-- ou,uuu 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 fA C 25,000 m' n. 20,000 15,000 .10,000 5,000 Lane County Natural Increase 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985- 1990- 1995- 2000- 2005- 2010- 2015- -1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20,15 2020 Year Migration Component Net migration is the most difficult component of the model to forecast and has had the greatest affect on population change. In this model, it is assumed that net migration is reflected in changes in the size of the labor force. There are three data sources used for developing the migration component: labor force participation rates by age and sex for both the resident population and the special population, independently projected 'civilian labor force, and the age-sex distribution of net migrants. Specifically, labor force participation rates by age and sex are applied to the survived resident population and the special population and then added together resulting in a derived civilian labor force. This derived civilian labor force is then compared with an independently projected civilian labor force. The difference in the two drives either in- or out-migration for the projection period. This net migration is then distributed by age and sex based on past trends. 5 Staff Memo - Page 17 e Attachment A Labor Force Participation Rates: The future labor -force- participation rates were developed comparing. the national actual and projected labor force participation rates developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics with actual 1990 labor force participation rates for Lane County. Labor force participation rates were developed for both the resident population and the special population. This was done by assuming that the special population accounted for the variation between the national and local rates. The projected labor force participation rates for the resident population by sex for. persons 16 and over are displayed below. As shown, the male participation slightly declines during .the.. projection series while the female participation slowly increases between 2005 and 2010, at which time it levels out. Projected Labor Force Participation Rates for Males 90 W 80 70- .0 CL 60 a x - 50 W IL CD 40 LL So- o a 20 10 0 100 --E- M 16-19 --♦--M20-24 X . M 25-34 M 35-44 - - M 45-54 ~M 55-64 'M 65+ 1990 - 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year 3 Staff Memo - Page 18 6 Attachment A . --E- F 16-19 t - -F 20-24 --X-F25-34 F 35-44 - - F 45-54 --A--F 55-64 -=*--F 65+ 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Independently-Projected Labor Force: In projecting civilian labor force, an independent analysis of Lane County civilian labor force estimates produced by the Oregon State Employment Division for the period 1960 to 1993 was conducted. This analysis included regression analysis and comparisons to independently projected employment projections. The following graph shows projected civilian labor force and projected wage and salary employment for Lane County. As displayed, the civilian labor force follows the trend of projected wage and salary employment. In general, the civilian labor force is projected to increase at `a rate similar to the rate of growth seen during the 1960s. 100 90 80 N m 70 c 0 60 0 a v 0 50 IL 40 0 LL O 30 M m 20 10 0 7 Staff Memo - Page 19 Labor Force Particpation Rates Females Attachment A Comparison of Lane.County' ; Civilian Labor Force and Wage-and Salary Employment 250,000- 200,000'- 150,000. - 100,000 - -CLF 50,000 - _ - - -0 W & S Employment 0 o LO o Lo' o in o Ln C, LO o LO o co co r~ r co Co rn M o o r N 0 0) 0) 0) CD 0) N N N N N Year Distribution of the Migrant Population: The migrant population is developed by comparing the. independently projected civilian labor force with the labor force derived from applying labor force participation rates to the resident and student populations. After the size of the migrant population . was determined, it was distributed into age and sex cohorts based on.1990 census figures for Lane County based on the review of County to County Out and In Migration flows 1989 to 1990 and 1980 census -data taken from PC 80-S 1-17, Gross Migration for Counties, 1975 to 1980. Results Historically, Lane County has a record of relatively steady population growth. During the 1970s, the population increased by 59,825 persons or 28 percent.' Approximately one-third of this increase was due to natural increase (births minus deaths) while two-thirds was due to in-migration. During the 1980s, the economic recession had an effect on population growth. The population increased by only 7,686 persons; 18,445 persons were added through natural increase and there was an out- migration of 10,759 persons. In 1990, the population reached 282,912 persons. These projections anticipate growth in the next 20 years to be above the levels that occurred between 1970 and 1990. l3etween 1970 and 1990, the population in Lane'County increased 30.2 percent. It is projected that in the next 20 years the population will increase 35 percent. This is slightly above the growth anticipated for the state, which is expected to be 33 percent. Employment projections for Lane County were developed for the same time period. These projections forecast a 1.6 percent annual average increase in employment for Lane County between Staff Memo - Page 20 8 Attachment A 1990 and 2015. For the Eugene-Springfield metro area, a 1.8 percent annual average increase is projected for this time period. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area In 1990, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan study area population was 204;359. The metro area population is projected to reach 301,400 persons by 2015, an increase of 97,041 persons or-a 47 percent. increase. This represents a 1.57 percent annual average increase over the 25-year,period . 1990 to 2015. Between 1990 and 2010, the Eugene-Springfield metro area population is expected to grow faster than both the state and the County, increasing at an annual average rate of approximately 1.54 percent compared to the-state's -1.45 and the County's 1.50.- Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Population Percentage Percentage Annual Average Year Population Changed Increase 1970 156,941 - - 1980 -197,632 25.93 2.33 1990 . 204,359 3.40 0.34 1995. 224,100 9.66 1.86 2000 240,700 7.41 1.44 2005 257,400 6.94 1.35 2010 277,600 7.85 1.52 2015 301,400 8.57 -1.66 9 Staff Memo - Page 21 Attachment A Metropolitan Study Area Population 350,000- 300,000- 250,000 c 200,000- 0 N i a. 150"000 100,000 50,000 01 . . 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year As shown in the table below, the 1990 metro area population accounted for 72 percent of the total Lane County population. This percentage is expected to increase to 73 percent by 2015. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Population Percentage . _ of Lane County Population Year Metro Lane County Percent Metro of Population Population Lane County 1970 156,941 215,401 73 1980 197,632 275,226 72 1990 204,359 282,912 72 1995 224,100 308,200 73 2000 240,700 330,000 73 2005 257,400 352,300 73 2010 277,600 381,000 73 2015 301,400 413,300 73 Staff Memo - Page 22 10 s Attachment A Comparison With- Other Projections r7 In the early 1990s, Lane County. projections were produced by two other agencies:. the Center for Population Research and Census (CPRC) at Portland State University and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). These projections are presented below. The CPRC and ODOT projections were completed.in 1993. i\ Overall, the Lane Council of Governments' (LCOG) projections are close to the CPRC projections. The CPRC projections project an annual average increase of 1.45 over the 20-year period 1990 to 2010, while the LCOG projections forecast a 1.5 annual average increase. The ODOT projections indicate higher population growth between 1990 and 1995. The three projections have similar population *forecasts for 2000. After 2000, the ODOT projections forecast less population increase than either the.CPRC or LCOG. Comparison of Population Projections for Lane County, Oregon 1993 1994 Center for Population Lane Council of Year 1993 ODOT Research and Census Governments .1996 283,490 282,912 282,912 1995 311,149 306,991 308,200 2000 330,325 330,853 330;000 .2005 347,769 354,499 352,300 2010. 367;240 377,341 381,000 20.15 - 413,000 In 1977, as part'of the development of the Metro ' Plan, LCOG produced Lane County and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Study Area projections. The methodology used to produce the 1977 projections is very.similar to the methodology used to produce this set of projections. A comparison of the two sets of projections for the Eugene-Springfield metro area follows. The 1977 projections show a population of 293,700 persons in 2000; in the 1994 projections, this figure is not. reached until some time between 2010 and 2015. 11 Staff Memo - Page 23 Attachment A Comparison of Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Study Area Projections .1977 LCOG Population 1994 LCOG Population Projections Projections 1980 194,900 1985 221,100 1990 246,200- 204,359 1995 271,300 224,100. 2000 293,700. 240,500 2005 257,400 2010 277,600 2015 301,400 The 1994 population projections forecast slower growth than the 1977 projections.. The 1977 projections forecast a 2.07 annual average increase for the 20-year period 1980 though 2000. The 1994 projections forecast a 1.54 annual average increase between -1990 and 2015. The 1977 projections were developed at a boom time when there was substantial population growth and residential development. This growth stopped in the early 1980s when the economic recession hit the area. At that time, -unemployment rates were high and population out-migration occurred. Not until after the 1983 did population statistics show growth. Population Range As the previous analysis indicates, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future. In order to provide flexibility _in this supply and demand analysis, a range from low to high was developed around the projection for the Eugene-Springfield metro area. To develop the range, the amount of growth between 1990 and 2015 was determined. Growth rates were reviewed and a proportion of that growth, 10 percent, was added and subtracted from the projection developed through the methodology described previously. 12 Staff Memo - Page 24 2015 Population Range , Low Growth (10 Percent Less Growth 291,700 Than Expected) Expected Growth . Over the 25-Year 301,400 Period High Growth (10 Percent More Growth 311,100 Than Expected) Below is a graph of the high and low range in relation to the expected projection and the growth that occurred between 1990 and 1995. This range from high to low was used in the. development of housing demand. Consequently, a high to low range is calculated for households, housing units and land demand in 2015. r E ugenL-Spdngf eldMetrn Area Pgpda6mRatge 1990- 2015 310,000 290,000 270,000 250,000 r, p, 230,000 High - 0 04 210,000 190,000 170,000 Low 150,000 19®5 1990 19% 2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 Year 13 Staff Memo -Page 25 90 95 - ~~F~ pected • ~ . Attachment A Projecting Future Households Average Household Size Average. household size describes the number of persons who live in an occupied housing unit and is a key variable in the housing demand methodology. Average household size has been declining both nationally and locally. The cause of the decline in household size is due to a variety of factors including lower fertility rates, increased divorce rate, higher survival rates, and delayed marriages. It is expected that household sizes will continue to decline. During the 1990s, the baby boom generation, which constitutes a large proportion of the population, is at the highest household formation ages. As the baby boom generation ages, they will move into ages that typically have smaller household size. Metropolitan Study Area Average Household Size Year Actual Projected 1960 3.13 1970 2.95 1980 2.51 1990 2.44 1995 2.40 2000 2.35 2005 2.32 2010 2.29 2015 . 2.27 Household size is inversely proportional to unit demand. The higher the household size, the fewer the number of housing units that will be demanded. Group Quarters Population The group quarter population includes individuals living in institutions such as dormitories, nursing homes, and jails or are homeless. In the next 20 years, the group quarter population will be affected by the countervailing forces of the student population and elderly population. Most of the present group quarter population are .students living in dormitories. At present, UO enrollment is fairly stable and there are no plans for major expansion. The elderly, population (80+) will be increasing. However, social service trends are attempting to keep seniors in a home setting. In 1980 and 1990, the group quarter population was 3.2 percent of the total metro population. It is projected the group quarter population will gradually decline in percentage. For these projections, it was assumed 3 percent of -the population would live in a group quarters situation. 14 Staff Memo - Page 26 Attachment A- S / Metropolitan Study Area Year Percent Group Quarters Population of Total Metro Area Population 1970 3.4 1980 3.2 1990 3.2 1995-2015 3.0 Household Proiections Household projections can be made using projected population, average household size and group quarter population. The calculation used to develop household projections was as follows: Projected Number. = Projected Population - Group Quarter Population of Households Average Household Size Using this calculation, projected households were developed for the next 20 years. . Metropolitan Study Area Total Households. Year Total Households 1970 49,903 1980 75,804. 1990 81;117 Projections Based on - Expected Growth 1.995 90,570 2000 99,350 2005. 107,600 2010 117,600 2015 128,800 The metro study area contained 81,11.7 households in 1990. By 2015, it is projected based on expected growth that there will be 128,800 households. This is a 59 percent increase in households. In 2015, based on the, range .of population growth, the number of households ranges from- 124,650 to 132,900. Applying a.3.5 percent vacancy rate results in a 2015 total housing units demand for - between _129,000 and 137,600 housing units for the Metro Study area. 15 Staff Memo - Page 27 Attachment A 2015 Projected Number of Households Range Low Growth (10 Percent Less Growth 124,650 Than Expected) Expected Growth Over the 25=Year 128,800 Period High Growth (10 Percent More Growth 132,900 Than Expected) Projected Housing Units in Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary The 2015 housing unit demand for the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary (U613) is determined by subtracting the existing developed units and .those expected to be built outside the UGB. and inside the Metro Study area during the planning period. There were 88,007 existing units based on the Lane County Geographic Information System. It.is-expected that 680 units will be built outside the UGB and inside the Metro Study area. This results in a 2015 housing unit demand of between 40,000 to 49,000 new units inside the UGB. Projecting Future-Housing Units There are a number of factors that affect the demand for housing in addition to the growth in households. To identify the long-run market for housing in the Eugene-Springfield UGB,-two Oregon consultants, ECONorthwest -and Leland Consulting Group, conducted an analysis. These consultants identified and projected the relevant factors and projected the residential demand for housing units by housing type. (See Appendix B, What Is the Market.Demand for Residential Real Estate in Eugene-Springfield?) In summary, the Market Demand Study analysis indicates that there is a relationship between household characteristics and housing demand and that household characteristics are expected to change. As the baby boomers move into older age groups, the age of the head of household will increase and the size of households will continue to become smaller. In addition, there will continue to be a decline in married-couple families with children. It is also projected that there will be an increase in the proportion of lower- to middle-income households. These new households will increase demand for smaller and alternative housing products. For the purposes of this analysis, the results of the Market Demand Study were translated into a range. In addition, to make the demand and supply as comparable as possible, it was necessary to bring both the demand and supply to 1992 conditions. The supply analysis represents 1992 16 Staff Memo --Page 28 Attachment A conditions .even though most of the inventory has been updated to January 1995. To bring the demand analysis to 1992 required determining the residential development that occurred within the Eugene-Springfield-UGB between 1990 and 1992. Based on the Lane County Geographic Information Systems (GIS), there were approximately 3,200 units added between 1990 and 1992. Units Added Inside the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary Between 1990 and 1996 Housing Type Single-Family, detached Single-Family, attached Multi-Family Mfr' d in Park Total Units Added Between Units Added Between 1990 and 1992* 1993 and 1996** 1;200 3,121 100 754 1,200 1,887 700 N/A 3,200 5,832 * Based on 111190 and 7/1/92 Metro Area Parcel riles Based on 7/92 - 6/96 Building Permit. Summaries for Eugene and Springfield While themumber of units issued through, building permits between 1992 and 1996 is known, the land associated with those units is not known. Consequently, it will not be used in the comparison. l 17 Staff Memo - Page 29 Attachment A This analysis results in a demand of between 40;000 .to 49,000 housing units in the 1992 to 2015 period. The distribution of these units by housing.type follows. Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary 1990-2015- Housing Unit Demand Percentage of Future 1992-2015 Housing Type . Housing Units Range of Number of Units Single-Family, detached* 40 16,000-19;600 Single-Family, attached 12 4,800-5,880 Multi-Family 35 14,000-17,150 Mfr' d in Park 13 5,200-6,370 Total 100 40,000-49,000 Includes manufactured dwellines on lots. The distribution of existing housing stock inside the UGB was reviewed for 1989 and 1998. As shown in the table below,, the percentage of single-family, detached decli ned in this time period from 61 percent to 59 percent. Looking at the distribution of units built between 1989 and 1998 indicates that 45 percent were single-family,'detached, including manufactured dwellings on lots.- Historic data considered townhouses to be multi-family instead of single-family, attached. Therefore, the historic number and percent of multi-family housing would be lower if townhouses were classified as single-family, attached. Number of Units by Type in Eugene-Springfield UGB 1989 Metro Parcel File, 1998 Lane Coun Address Libra 1989 19 98 Built Between Structure Type Number Percent Number ' Percent 1989 and 1998 1989 1989 1998 1998 Number Percent Single Family 46,665 60.41 53,857 56.62 7,192 40.22 Manfcturd Dwelling on Lot 990 1.28 1,943 2.04 953 5.33 Manfcturd Dwelling in.Park 3,430 4.44 4,966 . 5.22 1,536 8.59 Duplex 7,609 9.85 8,877 9.33 1,268 7.09 Multi-Family* 18,552- 24.02 25,483 26.79 6,931 38.76 Total 77,246 100.00 95,126 100.00 17,880 100.00 Includes Townhouses To accommodate the additional households in 2015, owner, renter, and government-assisted units will be-needed. The What Is the Market Demand for Residential Real Estate in Eugene- Springfield? report projected households by household income in 1990 constant dollars. From this analysis, an indication of future housing needs can be gleaned. 18 Staff Memo- Page 30 Attachment A By 2015, it is projected, there will be 15,000 additional households with incomes less than $15,000. This translates into a monthly expenditure for housing of $375 and less using the affordable housing definition that households pay less than or equal to. 30 percent of their income on housing. The most recent information on housing costs is a spring 1996, Eugene-Springfield apartment survey. This survey indicates that monthly rents for pre 1988 one-bedroom apartments averaged $447 ($376 in 1990 dollars) in Eugene and $_412 ($346 in 1990 dollars) in Springfield,:and two-bedroom-pre 1988 apartments averaged $538 ($457 in 1990 dollars) in Eugene and $506 ($425 in 1990 dollars) in Springfield. Monthly rents for new units average over $100 more. Thus;' some households with incomes under $15,000 would require some government assistance. Furthermore, some households in the $15,000429,000 range would require government assistance. These assisted units could be of any housing type. Households with incomes between $15,000 and $29,000 would most likely be able to afford rental housing, primarily multi-family. Households with income between $29;000 and $48,000 would be able to afford home ownership of multi-family; single-family, attached; and single-family, detached on small lots. Households with incomes over $48,000 could afford home ownership of all housing types. 19 Staff Memo - Page 31 Attachment A Residential Land Demand . To conduct this supply. and demand analysis it is necessary to determine the.number of net acres of land needed by plan designation. This requires making assumptions on two factors: . • The distribution of new units developed within density categories • Net density at which new housing units will be built within density categories Within the Eugene-Springfield UGB, residential development is planned to occur on land designated low-, medium-, and high-density residential (LDR, MDR, and HDR, respectively). Based on the Metro Plan, these three density categories refer to specific housing density categories. Low density. includes up to 14.28 dwelling units per net acre; medium density is 14.28 through 28.56 units per net acre; and high density includes 28.56 and more dwelling units per net acre. The existing distribution of housing types by generalized zoning was reviewed prior to developing assumptions on the future distribution. The table below displays the 1992 existing distribution. Zonetype by Structure Type 1992 Metro Parcel File Rroe. Fay + Mf rd as Mohr Mf rd in ZoneMx Lot Duplex Family Park L 95.4 78.2 21.1 98.3 M - 4.3 21.1 50.7 1.7 H 0.3 0.7 28.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 E. 20 Staff Memo - Page 32 w ~ w W A Q 0 0 w .A w Q W w z 0 .u 0 u z 0 u w z a 0 A~ ~ a w ~ .a. A w 04 w ~ w . H W ~ Z E-{ w ~ H Q ~ w co co a) (6 a O E a) w co ^Q R-+ • rn WM 0 0 P z a x z 0 u 0 z w a x 0 z 0 u w 03 L u U z a, v z O o Q ~ W U ~ O o z C4 Cl) Ow .p O u1 0 A Cf) O r--1 cri r-+ ~ U r--i O O _v ,1, O S~ O Cf) ` -4 O W an 41 d ;-q O O w U bjD w w Q) cd U U W' to b U z 4-j o bO o' U U • c U .,.i 4"► V O tb -F~ O O O Q) ~-H bC) mo - w ,H as r u 4-) O U 3--1 C~ Q) U) O V > Lo 0 a) > bjD o x C) CO O as O c~ O u U O 4.1 4-1 p r Q-, ~ N (.Ia 4-j x ~W-~ E-i o r CU) H o tb a, S 114 ~O O~ W 0 O O Q z W a x 1 O' O W v M O m O E U) U W 03 0 w W Q Q Q 0 Q H ~zz Q w G] z w O w 0 U z a 0 U w O -1 Q) r a ~ ~ r r--q 4-j Cl) C) I-j cri v O v 0-4 W C) co rq o O ~ j , a C) C) ca PI-I c~ . Q) C) Cd ff. ~ U U) ~ O ~ 0 0 .W O ~ .Cn • • • Z H ~ V o u w V o w O v O v X m O o 41 (z ~ o O Q) Q) U O bbjJ w C i F-•' Q ~ W o a~ Lr) M r-I C4 p V O t 0 lu z L z 0 a H z 0 w LIB ' Cl) N O E Z . 0 z cd 0) w 1 o z w 4 ~n 0 H C) Q Z N a, . . A A 0 . w O W X a1 ~ a ~ a P W W c1~ ^ W W o ~ bA . W ~ W °o 4 O o n o Q Q ~ ~ O o H w ~ O pv Lr) H Cif I w C O O O o O Lq O 000 L~ N L- m Q 0 0 0 ~ o o, N O r-i ' m 0 0 0 CQ 0 O 0 N 00 N -1 L" LO ~ N O O c LO CD N C L~ cr) N r- N r4 \ . N CD ° O-Z W ° ° N ~ C) t ~o N I m "U t N 1.~ ° O O O O ON N 00 ~z r-r eQ O O CD z X r-+ O o~ N ~ o 0 o CIS 15 ~w • QV ~-1 0 Ld v+ JC~ 604 V zi ni 00 cd cd 4-j w 2 . O O 0 P ~ ° z d 0 E (D U) ON rn V O o t~ F z O Q z a x O O w d 03 LL) Q , O cr) LO Lf) cr) O ~ N ~ ~ ~ Ctn. v p W-4 a N CD O O o o v a' of o U.G\ m °oo°O~°o°o ~ eo - ~ ri~oa;t~~ , U) c*.) N N y~~ 60 o° 8~0 \ o\° ° o O -i~-~ m0°~~°O a W Lo as A o N O O O O O o N 0 0 0 0 0 O C) CD C) CZ) L-1 LO Lo r-q cz Fxl ' o r-I cn I ~i . O °o to c1r) CD ~ O ~-1 o 0 0 0 \ b4o C!) C~ 'di O O o O arm Q Z..", 9 ~ CZ Z O bA. N O O O O O. ;:1 14-1 O O. O- O. O c) (f). C5 5 rz F--4 O N E C) > w N D CA 1d7 LO -tja 0 CU 00 'r-q C'4. C) 4-4 o O o Lr) LO w O N C-4 LC) \0 h w w u O 0 u U 0 A a w 0 O w M N (6 d ' O E 03 d O u z 0 u w z w O w C.7 H eL. W ~ H ~ W LY 0 Z ' ~4 ~ O rz O W o ~q v Q Q ~ ~ o LL 4-j C D C-) (Ts 0 4-J O U b. ~ ' C,O C) ~ Cp 0 u 4-4 m 0 CZ) . C v o ~ 0 a aZIS 00 H W Q • \D rn rn w fn 0 u O a O r4 u u z H a 0 A a w ,a . H 0 O w 00 co N fl: 0 E co C7 N r P4 .~j 03 - Q o w ~ v A v cn v NO E., o btu bA. w E-+ • ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ bA ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Ste, ~i O cvj v Q) N cif cri u -4:1 ~ N o 0 44.~ v° o D CD C:) v o 00 LO hh,, al O O a `~S! x W v o CD CD CD u O O CD O O G v 00 ON a LO cn W 'N O c y o Wes,, ~ bo 4-1 v cn ~ o 'N ~ 00 z v u la4r o rn w d 01% O% w V O 0 u z U Q w a x 0 0 U. Cl) 0 0 E m 4 03 H rz r~ 0 W W Q Q z C4 0 Q Q w Q w u~ of U s o U w a w O W H W C 'MJ V xz h ~ A a a w ~F•1 N W V 0 U-)z o~ z~ W ~rT~1 ,r FH WO O --O--m-o-ol o W ^T` W •N O 4J ~NN 0 0 v `N i m \ 00 v ' M 00 A V u 00 c m pri T 0 N III w O 0 TLI cu 0 o Z-o ' O cd t , N P-4 F--q 0 0 0 8-01 Q V ' O,\ C) ~ o 0 0 0 ON O` 'I'D I'D Cf) CD CD l -i 0 - r-i 0 0 0 \ \ Q di 00 N "o r-i o LO m o O O O ~ p N 0 0 r-oi 0 0 0 d~+ o° 0 1 -0-111 00 r-I O 0 0 0 Lf) m o r-i 0-01 0 0 d ~ ,O N D a~ .Cd 4-1 a) ~,d cz .Cd CZ ~ Q) o x ~ u o ~ o> ~ ea ~p W ~ a o ~o .o ~ y o~ U d O rte.. N H H _U+ A U z~ d •y .Y z ,r o0 2 ~ z O h U w ~z 00 +O+ d X O 01 'Y" O w H U ° 60 0 P 0 E m O co N C7 Q~ W O O • z O A W i O O w N z W ~ O W 0 z O WA A W O U U W O 0 V ~ . 14 0 ~ Q •N Q~ ,Z C) p u~ LO ~a O by -N ~ b0 W •ea O Cft p` •H V W o ~ O fLS O N O O y~ m W ~ O V O O 0 ~i N N U) CD C31\. Lo U) r--i N Q) CD c!~ O N N c31 O~ W O V OR O O ~ 8-01 O co r~. N Ln r--+ O o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 rLn-1 rIt-i tN-i m r-A if) . 0 0 0\\ c o r- r-i Cf) N O cr cn N c-1 O O O O O o 0 O O O. O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~N o o 0 0 0 -o , m e N rm-l N O off' dQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO U O N N 00 N , N N N t--l 00 L, 0 Io 0 0 0 ~ \ , N m N ono co o Q y r-i U ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N` 0 0 0 0 0 0 d N m110 :Zlq N Ll o 0 N N r-i r°-i L~ U U ti T1 v T V , _ y t:1 u C) v v iR~ ~ n 6°z 0 E a~ N _ W a . rn 0 0 0 0 U Q a w a . x 0 0 W L Irl, It' C.U 03 W a c.,7 O ~ O ~ w ~ H w e~ W C!) . U) Q ~ w ri) ~ W O ~ a Q 4) U w Q O Z 0 w A m z w A w {va w O O a U z a O W z Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 n m ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N + iii . Lf) O O O _O . d 00 c--1 O Cn ~ o ~ 0 0 0 0 c~ ~ 00 N m r-i O c c 0 0 0 0 N Oo 00 N ~ L O t O O O ~ O O O N 00 ~ "D COo cu Cl~ bA ~ H a cd 0 Q- O ~ ~ v Cq U U. C~s m v. o 0-01 -0-1c) o Lf) 0 0-01 0 Lll~ CO `'J O 0-01 lo-Z 0 L 00 C,4 r) O 0-01 a o LO LO O Ln d{ O oo 0 ~ ~ O rl N W d y X 2 O w 0 U 5 U 0 \.D• ON O\ H C4 0 O . 0 O Upp Q w . x O O w N V I O E N m