05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 49 in the PUD. That is, the best PUD would be one with no dwellings, as that would fully preserve the status quo, which would fully preserve all the values that are supposed to be preserved -trees, views, riparian resources, existing neighborhoods, and the like. There would be no question that the proposed PUD would minimize cut and fill, encourage preservation of steep slopes, vegetation, significant visual impact, ensure maximum preservation of existing vegetation and other such unquantifiable standards. No development would guarantee that these standards would be met. (c) Previous PUD approvals under the SHS recognize that natural resource values need to be maximized around allowing the level of development anticipated by the plan and code. These points are addressed individually below. (a) The 5 du/ac cap already reflects the city's'program for preserving Goal 5 resources. The city's acknowledged Goal 5 program reflects the city's ultimate policy choice for balancing the preservation of Goal 5 resources in the South Hills with the need to allow the conflicting use -residential development. Both the dwelling unit cap and the PUD process are acknowledged implementing measures. The applicant believes that up to five dwelling units should be allowed because the Goal 5 program says that limiting the conflicting use down to that level is the appropriate amount of mitigation. The opponents and the staff believe that the dwelling unit count should be reduced even more in order to do right in terms of things related to the Goal 5 visual resources in the South Hills, which really means trees and open space and the ridgeline and such. Opponents are really arguing for a second bite at the conflicting uses, when the governing body already has an acknowledged program limiting the size of the bite - reducing density by 64%, from 14 du/ac to 5. There really is no reasoned legal basis for the second bite. The status of the South Hills area as a Goal 5 scenic resource was discussed at the hearing by opponents' geotechnical expert, Gunnar Schlieder. The applicant's Prehearing exhibits provide more detailed documentation about the acknowledged Goal 5 resource present. These are collected primarily under Exhibit 2 in the Applicant's Prehearing Submittal. There is narrative discussion in Exhibit 2-1, a Letter from the Law Office of Bill Kloos. Supporting that is Exhibit 2- 1.1, the complete DLCD Staff Reports relating to Metro Plan Acknowledgment inside the UGB (1981-1982). Exhibit 2-1.2 is the Metro Plan Scenic Sites Working Paper (April 12, 1978), including Figure H-2. Exhibit 2-1.3 is the Hearing Official Decision, Deerbrook PUD, PDT 12-1 (Sept. 21, 2013), discussing the Goal 5 issue. The Applicant also relied upon a LUBA decision addressing the Metro Plan Goal 5 program. Home Builders Assn. of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428, 431 (2002). The exhibits listed above are discussed in the Exhibit 2-1 Law Office letter. In summary, the1980-1982 Metro Plan acknowledgment documents explain that the South Hills area as a whole is an acknowledged Goal 5 Scenic Resource in which the conflicting residential uses are "limited" with the density caps stated in the South Hills Study, the SHS siting standards, and the PUD standards. LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument- Page 15 98 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 853