7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (04)

increasing traffic 145% and the addition of all of the public invitees they solicit to their property for events, the safety currently established by the neighborhood will be greatly diminished. This is the last opportunity thatthe City will have to require the dedication of the right-of-way prior to the City needing the right-of-way f or future street construction if this sized development is permitted. 2. The PUD application fails to. comply with EC 9.2751 Density Standards. The applicant claims 28 units for density calculations. The maximum allowable density for the project site (TL 400 and TL 5500) is alleged to be 32 units. This is based on the gross maximum allowable density for the 2.3 acre project site and the R-1 maximum allowable densityof 14 units/acre. However, it appears that public easements, access ways used by the public, or right of ways were not removed from the gross acreage to calculate the maximum allowable net density in the PUD application. In addition, this calculation fails to take into account the "Common House" and the four'hotel room' units contained within the common house where people will live and will rely upon the common house bathrooms and kitchen f or their meals. Correctly including this structure raises the density to 32 units, and the developer fails to provide substantial evidence why those 4 units should not be factored into the density of the development and whether the application meets density standards once the easements, access ways, and right of ways are removed from the calculation. EC 9.2751 (1) (c)(1) states the acreage considered part of the residential use shall exclude public and private streets and alleys,.. and other public facilities. According to the code, the following areas on the site should be excluded from the gross acreage for the net density calculation: *Sanitary sewer easement (20 ft. wide) on east property line that bisects public and private boundary thus imposing a 10-foot easement on the subject property. *The EWEB water easement (see below) for the connection of a new 6-inch water main from McClure to Oakleigh Lane, which will cross the OMC project site (referenced in the August EWEB referral letter, but not set forth in the application and thus no evidence of compliance submitted to the City). The anticipated water line easement would go under the access street in the west portion of the property and likely run along the south property boundary to the gravel alley on the west side of 131 McClure. No evidence has been provided by the Applicant regarding this easement. *Access road width outside of the EWEB water line (another 8 feet to make 22 ft. width) *Fire and Garbage turnaround, used as a public utility/facility. *New Oakleigh lane ROW of 22.5 ft. for the whole distance of Oakleigh abutting the OMC property. *Adee and Connelly property removal from the gross acreage (see site plan A1.1). The City states that this portion was already removed form the gross density before the PUD application. According to the PUD application Site Plan Sheet A1.1 the property line just north of the existing shop building is presented as pending a property line adjustment. This portion of the gross area should be removed from the useable density. *Bike path ROW along north property line z The EWEB referral refers to the need f or a Public Utility Easement (PUE) of 14 feet in width for water line looping when not adjacent to the ROW. Water line looping is required per EWEB policy and for Eugene Fire Department requirements. Since there is no public ROW that crosses the 0 M C property, then there will have to be a waterline easement of 14 ft. in width across the OMC property, therefore at a minimum the PUE should cross the OMC property from the end of the Oakleigh Lane to the end of McClure Lane. For this net density calculation the public utility easement would be assumed to go under the west access road and then follow the south property line to the gravel "alley" on 131 McClure, which would also 799