TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Keith Stahley, City Manager
FROM: Kristin Retherford, Community Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT:
title
City Council review of an appeal filed by a neighboring property owner following the Planning Administrator’s decision approving a 405-unit multi-family residential development, Urban Growth Area Preliminary Declaration, Class 3 Site Plan Review, Class 1 and Class 2 Adjustments, Class 2 Driveway Approach Permit, Class 1 Design Review, and Property Line Adjustment Case No. UGA-SPR-ADJ-DAP-DR-PLA24-03 for property located at 4650 Hazelgreen Road NE.
Ward(s): 5
Councilor(s): Gonzalez
Neighborhood(s): Northgate Neighborhood Association
Result Area(s): Welcoming and Livable Community
end
SUMMARY:
summary
The Planning Administrator approved a request to develop a new thirty-three building multi-family residential development containing a total of 405-dwelling units for property located at 4650 Hazelgreen Road NE (Attachment 1). An appeal was filed by a neighboring property owner. The City Council will decide to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Administrator approving the consolidated application.
end
ISSUE:
Shall the City Council affirm, modify, or reverse the Planning Administrator’s decision approving Urban Growth Area Preliminary Declaration, Class 3 Site Plan Review, Class 1 and Class 2 Adjustments, Class 2 Driveway Approach Permit, Class 1 Design Review, and Property Line Adjustment Case No. UGA-SPR-ADJ-DAP-DR-PLA24-03.
RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
Affirm the Planning Administrator’s decision approving Urban Growth Area Preliminary Declaration, Class 3 Site Plan Review, Class 1 and Class 2 Adjustments, Class 2 Driveway Approach Permit, Class 1 Design Review, and Property Line Adjustment Case No. UGA-SPR-ADJ-DAP-DR-PLA24-03.
body
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
Procedural Findings:
1. Summary of Record:
The following items are submitted to the record and are available: 1) All materials and testimony submitted by the applicant, including any applicable professional studies such as traffic impact analysis, geologic assessments, stormwater reports, and; 2) materials, testimony, and comments from public agencies, City Departments, neighborhood associations, and the public. All application materials are available on the City’s online Permit Application Center at <https://permits.cityofsalem.net <https://egov.cityofsalem.net/PACPortal>>. You may use the search function without registering and enter the permit number listed here: 23 121805.
2. On November 3, 2023, a consolidated application for an Urban Growth Area Preliminary Declaration, Class 3 Site Plan Review, Class 2 Adjustment, Class 1 Adjustment, Class 2 Driveway Approach Permit, Class 1 Design Review, and Property Line Adjustment was filed for the proposed development. After additional information was provided, the consolidated applications were deemed complete for processing on January 24, 2024.
3. On February 29, 2024, the Planning Administrator issued a decision approving the collective application (Attachment 2).
4. On March 14, 2024, a timely Notice of Appeal was filed by a neighboring property owner (Attachment 3). Per SRC Chapter 300, Table 300-2 City Council voted to initiate review of the appeal filed by the applicant.
5. The applicant has provided a time extension to the 120-day state mandated decision deadline for this collective application to extend the deadline from May 23, 2024, to June 22, 2024.
Substantive Findings:
Notice of Appeal
On March 14, 2024, a neighboring property owner filed timely and complete notice of appeal. The notice of appeal states that the primary reason for the appeal is the Planning Administrator’s decision to grant Adjustments reducing or eliminating screening requirements, including installation of a six-foot tall fence and trees, along the southern boundary of the proposed multi-family residential development site. The following items were raised in the notice of appeal, followed by a staff response.
• Analysis of Land Use Decision on Appeal.
The applicable screening provision is found in SRC 702.020(b)(2), which states:
Where a development site abuts property that is zoned Residential Agricultural (RA) or Single Family Residential (RS), a combination of landscaping and screening shall be provided to buffer between the multiple family development and the abutting RA or RS zoned property. The landscaping and screening shall include the following:
(A) A minimum of one tree, not less than 1.5 inches in caliper, for every 30 linear feet of abutting property width; and
(B) A minimum six-foot tall, decorative, sight-obscuring fence or wall. The fence or wall shall be constructed of materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls, such as wood, stone, rock, brick, or other durable materials. Chainlink fencing with slats shall be not allowed to satisfy this standard.
• Bonneville Power Administration - Power Line Easement.
There is an existing 125-foot-wide easement for a BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) transmission line that extends across the entire southern boundary of the property with a width of approximately 16 feet on the subject property and 109 feet on the abutting RS (Single Family Residential) zoned properties to the south. No buildings or structures can occur within the easement, including fencing. Trees and vegetation exceeding a height of five feet are also not permitted in the easement area; therefore, the applicant requested an Adjustment to the screening requirements because it is not possible to provide the required buffering along the southern property line in the easement area.
• Definition of Abutting.
The appellant indicates that the term abutting, as defined in SRC 111.001, means touching along a boundary or point, and indicates that SRC 702.020(b)(2) does not require the actual location of the fence and trees to be at the property boundary, and that the fencing and landscaping could be provided in a location that is outside the BPA easement.
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the findings of the appellant. The use of abutting in SRC 702.020(b)(2) informs the applicability of the screening requirement based on the zoning of abutting property. SRC 702.020(b)(2) does not prescribe an exact planting location or location for the fence. The applicant considered moving the fence and tree plantings further north outside of the BPA easement; however, due to the location of proposed Buildings 26 and 27, there would not be sufficient distance between the fence and building walls for trees to grow and thrive, and the fence would constrain private open space area. Similar difficulties were found on the western portion of the site near proposed Building 33. Moving the fence and tree plantings further north outside of the BPA easement would directly conflict with the location of the off-street parking area.
• SRC 110.060 states that the UDC shall be applied independently of, and without regard to, any private easement, covenant, condition, restriction, or other legally enforceable interest in, or obligation imposed on, the use or development of land.
The appellant indicates that per SRC 110.060, the requirements of the UDC are enforceable and that the existence of the private BPA easement is immaterial for purposes of the application of SRC 702.020(b)(2).
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the findings of the appellant. SRC 702.020(b)(2) is applicable to the proposed development; the Planning Administrator did not waive the requirement due to the BPA easement. However, the applicant can apply for a Zoning Adjustment for an applicable development standard which the Planning Administrator can grant upon finding that the Adjustment sought is consistent with the approval criteria outlined in SRC Chapter 250. As noted in the staff report, the existence of the BPA easement creates a hardship in providing screening along the southern boundary due to restrictions on structures and trees. The easement, which has a total width of 125-feet, also creates a unique situation in the amount of separation that will be added between uses. Normally, in the single-family residential zone, dwellings can be placed 14-20 feet from the rear property line. Multi-family residential buildings similar to proposed Buildings 26 and 27 require a 35-foot setback to the abutting property line, for a total distance between buildings of 49-55 feet being permitted. The proposed separation is more than double what would normally be required between multi-family and single-family residential uses.
• The appellant indicates that the applicant’s proposal to plant two species of shrubs along the southern boundary to provide a physical and visual barrier does not equally or better meet the intent of SRC 702.020(b)(2), which states that a combination of screening and landscaping shall be used to create a buffer.
Staff Response: The applicant’s landscape proposes to landscape the southern boundary with shrubs that at maturity will provide a dense physical and visual barrier and be consistent with the height limitations for vegetation within the BPA easement. The applicant explored providing denser group of plantings within the easement at the time of installation, however, landscape needs time to grow and adequate space thrive. Landscaping that is planted that too dense may not grow as intended, therefore this option was not selected. Due to the restrictions of the BPA easement, the unique distance the easement creates between uses, and a landscape plan which will provide a dense group of shrubs that will provide a physical and visual barrier at maturity, staff found the requested Adjustment to be consistent with the approval criteria.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is approximately 15.6 acres in size, zoned MU-I (Mixed Use-I) and RM-II (Multi-Family Residential). Multi-family residential uses are allowed as an outright permitted use in both the MU-I and RM-II zones. Additionally, Hazelgreen Road Park, a future City park that is approximately 45.26 acres in size, is planned on abutting property to the west.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Administrator approving Urban Growth Area Preliminary Declaration, Class 3 Site Plan Review, Class 1 and Class 2 Adjustments, Class 2 Driveway Approach Permit, Class 1 Design Review, and Property Line Adjustment Case No. UGA-SPR-ADJ-DAP-DR-PLA24-03.
Aaron Panko
Planner III
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning Administrator’s decision dated February 29, 2024
3. Notice of Appeal dated March 14, 2024