05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 53 Applicant's Prehearing Exhibit 2-1 (Lttr from Law Office of Bill Moos) appends PUD decisions and PUD Staff Reports that reflect such conditioning. Workable conditioning is generally welcome by PUD applicants. To be workable, however, recommended changes need to accommodate the inherent trade-offs. For example, the Public Works comments on this application want more connectivity among the streets on the project site. That can be done by conditioning. However, other city staff will need to be OK with the impacts of that- on vegetation, Goal 5 stream crossing, views, steep slopes, etc. As noted in our Prehearing Exhibit 2-1, that kind of coordinated review is not reflected in the Staff Report and is not typically done by city staff. Instead, the myriad of specialist stakeholders across the city staff critique applications from the perspective of their specialty areas, with no staff person making the ultimate policy choices that are reflected in the application. 3. Flexibility of standards is the hallmark of PUDs. PUDs are intended to allow flexibility in applying plan and code standards to a development. EC 9.8300 begins with: "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, potential environmental impacts, and are intended to: * * * This provides a wide degree of latitude in designing a complex project for a challenging site like this one. The code sets a low bar to qualify for relief from a standard in orderto encourage flexibility. The entitlement to relief from the development standards in the code is set out explicitly in EC 9.8320(11)(k), which requires compliance with: "All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose o Planned Unit Development." Thus, approval or not of any requested relief from standard is earned based on achieving one or more of the purpose for PUDs. An example of how this works can be found in the Planning Commission decision in Rivendell PUD (PDT 10-1 (Oct. 25, 2010), remanded on other grounds Treadmil/loint Venture v. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2010-107, April 24, 2012). A copy of the decision appears in the Prehearing Submittals as Exhibit 4-1. There, on the recommendation of the staff, the Hearing Official denied several requests for relief from lot development standards in connection with a residential PUD in north Eugene. The Planning Commission reversed all the denials and afforded the relief, explaining that they met the purpose section of EC 9,8300, and the reasons for the initial denial by the Hearing Official and staff were not based on the purposes for PUD. In the sections below, where a request is made for relief from the plan and code standards, it is evaluated against the purpose statements for PUDs. Review of Specific PUD Standards Lau relRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 19 102 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 857