Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 7/16/2010 , . . METZGER Mark From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: METZGER Mark Friday, July 16, 2010 8:50 AM 'Eric Hall' RE: DRC2010-00016 Appeals_01.07.09.ddk[1].pdf I have responded by inserting my responses in the context of your questions. I hope these help answer your questions. I expect to get the staff report and decision to you later this morning. From: eric.hall.eha [mailto:eric.hall.eha@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eric Hall Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:48 PM To: METZGER Mark Cc: Bob Harris Subject: DRC201O-00016 Mark: I had a couple of questions for you that I am hoping you can shed some light on that have come up as a result.of our ongomg process: I) I believe today is the end of the public comment period. Have you received any comments? Also, have you received any new or altered staff findings? I haven't received any comments as of this writing. I have not received any amendment to the positions outlined in our last meeting. Their position is outlined in the draft staff report that I sent last week. 2) In reviewing the "Significantly Buttressed" staff findings from the traffic engineer, I found no mention ofthe 200' separation from an intersection that was mentioned several times by Mr Barnett in our last meeting. Since this seemed to be his major point of concern during that meeting, I am hoping to get a copy of the actual SDC sections and language that he was referencing to review. SDC 4.2-120 includes Table 4.2-4 which shows the Minimum separations between driveways and the nearest intersection curb return. As the table shows, there is a 200' standard for separation. The notations below the table indicate there is some flexibility that may be exercised in applying the standard. Table 4.2-4 Minimum Separations Between a Driveway and the Nearest Intersection Curb Return on the Same Side of the Street.(l) Land Vse Single-family Residential and Du lexes Multifamily Residential Commercial! Public Land Industrial Arterial 200 feet Street Type Collector 50 feet Local 30 feet 200 feet 200 feet 200 feet 100 feet 100 feet 200 feet bit) 1 ,-1 " . . (1) Each category of street is considered separately. m$ln<;eS mayjJgcrE!(jucell in t:I)!ifollowing.dJ:Ci!mstances: (a) Access is from a one-way street. (b) The driveway is marked for "right-in-right-out only." (c) The driveway is marked "exit only" and is designed to prevent left tums. (ei) In cases where an existing lot/parcel and/or usemake Compliance with these specifications unreasonable, a new driveway oi an existing driveway required to be relocated by this Code.shall be placed at the furt!:LestRoint from the' intersection curb retum} !:onsI<!e_ljngJJQt:I)_safetOnd_intemal d,-cuJatiQn.requj'-e.ments-,~tthe_de.v:el()pment! 3) Finally, there seemed to be some confusion as to whether any Site Review or other process would be involved in continuing to use the existing parking lot as it is currently configured? Can you please verify whether any of the following actions would trigger any requirements for a Site Review process or any permits? 3a) repairing holes in the existing AC paved parking lot? 3b) replacing any existing impervious surface within the parking lot with new impervious surface? 3c) resealing the existing AC paved parking lot? 3d) restriping the existing ACpaved parking lot? 3e) adding any additional landscape plantings with the existing parking lot? I understand that any increase or decrease in number of parking spaces would likely trigger such processes as would any increases in impervious surfaces. These would not be anticipated by as part of the base assumptions for the questions raised above. Question #3 and its components are asking at what point will maintenance or construction on the site trigger the need for a permit. The question misses the point in the Development Code. The Code fo.cuses on a change in use and not new construction per se. The former use of the site was a restaurant. The paved parking supported the restaurant. In the absence of the restaurant, the use ofthe site as a parking lot is a change in use. A change in use for commercial and industrial uses triggers Site Plan Review, Site Plan Modification or a Minimum Development Standards (MDS) review, depending on the type and size of the development. The Code is specific about including new parking areas as a development. SOC 5.17-105 lists the activities that trigger Site Plan Review. An excerpt with highlights from this section is shown below: "2. Multifamily residential, commercial, public and semi-public, and industrial development or uses, in'e1uding construction ofimpervious surfa~es forp~rkTr;g-i~ and storage areas, including: a. New development on vacant sites and redevelopment as a result of demolition and removal of existing buildings and impervious surfaces on a formerly occupied site. b. Additions or expansions ~xceed either 50 percent of the existing b'~i1ding gross floor.area or5,000 square feet or more of new building gross floor area and/or impe~io-;:;-; surface area. c. Additions, expansions and ~hanges of use, regardless of size' or intervening use, that: i. Contain or are within 150 feet of the top of bank (as measured from the property line of the subject property) of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) identified on the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department; 2 , ii. . Contain or are within 100 feet of the to!bank (as measured from the property line of the subject property) of any direct tributaries of WQLW identified on the WQLW Map on file in the Development Services Department; iii. Are located within the City's urbanizable area, outside of the city limits; or iv. ~cated within-50 feet of~ntially zoned or designated land (as measured from the property line of the subject property). v. EXCEPTIONS: (a) The Director may determine that a Type II Site Plan Review does not apply to certain changes of use required under Subsections 12.c.i. through iv., above if a finding is made that the change of use will not have an adverse impact on water quality and/or residential uses. In this case, the change of use may be reviewed \.mderMinir;'lUm De"velopment Standards procedures specified in Sectio~:55-100 o~inor Site Plan'- i ,....----. . ... Modification as specified in Section 5.17-145." Staff chose to treat the proposed parking lot as a Minor Site Plan Modification. At the very minimum, a new use triggers a review of the city's Minimum Development Standards. SDC 5.15-120 addresses Minimum Development Standards. MDS review allows the same discretion to be exercised in closing driveways that being applied in this decision (SDC 5.15-120 IE) cites SDC 4.2-120). 4) I want to confirm the process and amount for an appeal of the yet-to-be-determined staff findings. Is the application on line? What are the fees? What is the timeline for such an appeal to be heard in front of the planning commission? I have attached a copy of the Appeals application. SDC Section 5.3-115 details the procedures for appeal of a Type II Decision. . Appeals must be filed within 15 calendar days of a decision. . At least 20-days notice must be sent to the appellant and all parties who submitted comments. . Given the notice requirement, it is not likely that the Planning Commission could hear the case until September. . The fee is $250 as set by ORS 227.175. 5) There are several points in the findings of the traffic engineer that I take specific objection to and I am wondering what the forum is to raise those concerns? Is it this something that is specific to be brought up on appeal, or is there another venue where these items of concern should be raised? Requesting a meeting with the Bill Grile, Development Services Director (supervises planning), Transportation Manager, Tom Boyatt, andjorSusan Smith, Public Works Director, (supervises transportation) may be an interim step prior to an appeal. I would not want to raise the expectation that there would be a significantly different change in the decision, but an applicant may choose to review the decision with higher level administrators. Those specific points in brief are as follows: 3 ~ Finding #8: SDC section 4.2-1201(1)(a) states that all parcels should ha'an approved access to a public street. This is not a maximum requirement, but a minimum one such that lots aren't created with no public access. This sections language is being grossly misused to support the conclusion that only one access at most is allowed per development site. Finding #9: This finding is woefully incomplete as it lists only a few of the "effective ways" to reduce the probability of traffic crashes. Presumably reduction of travel speed, better lighting, traffic control devices, required proximity detectors on automobiles, more frequently required vision acuity tests of drivers, compulsory periods of silence within automobiles to help foster maximum driver attentiveness, and simply banning the use of automobiles inside the urban city limits would also contribute to effectively reducing the probability of traffic crashes. It would seem that any of these and likely others should be available to the owner as options in addressing a yet undocumented safety hazard. Finding #10 As we have already demonstrated, these 5 lots are only currently being used as one cohesive lot and plans are already underway for them to function as two separate lots. Finding #11 States that the Public Works director is allowed (but not required) to "combine access for two or more lots/parcels, if required, to reduce the number of driveways along a street". But in this case no driveways are being combined along a single street. Rather an access is being closed with the intent oftraffic being routed through a separate access point located within a residential area along a local street. Again, this language was intended to allowed shared driveways between adjacent properties, rather than multiple driveways in and out of separate parcels. In this case it is being used to bolster closing an existing access with no other accesses along that same street frontage, which would seem to amount to a taking of an existing access right. Further, the city traffic engineer has not demonstrated any analysis from which they can conclude that the access from Market or Parker is sufficient for Credit Union use. Finally, I wanted to update you on several fronts with regard to our processes. Darnien with Branch Engineering has made a request to ODOT for their records for any reportable accidents for the subject areas adjacent to our site. Given the thoroughness of Traffic's findings, I suspect there are none, as they would have likely already been mentioned, but we don't want to leave any stone unturned. As question 3) above infers, the owner is giving consideration to simply not doing anything further with the Site Review application. If so, I am assuming that there are some fees that would be refundable should this application be withdrawn. Can you clarify those processes and what refunds our client might be eligible for. As always Mark, your help has been much appreciated. enc Eric Hall Eric Hall Architects. Inc. 116 Hwy 99, Suite 100 Eugene, OR 97402 PH 541-688-5594 FX 541-688-0530 email: eric@erichallarchitects.com www: www.erichallarchitects.com 4