Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 3, 2015 Page 2 (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section. A handful of key cases are relevant here: Group B, LLC v. City of Corvallis, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2015-019, Aug. 25, 2015)(reversing denial under Needed Housing Statute); Parkvierv Teri-ace Dev't Inc. v. City of Grants Pass, Or LUBA _ (No. 2014-024, July 23, 2014)(same); Rudell v. City of Bandon, 62 LUBA 279 (2010)(finding discretionary standards inapplicable); Home Builders Assoc. of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 424 (2002)(facial challenge to new provisions in Eugene code as contrary to the statute). Standard EC 9.56875(c): The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. As a starting point, three things are worth noting about this standard. First, as the Staff Report explains at page 10, the 19 lot rule is unique to those who exercise their statutory right to clear and objective standards; the rule does not appear in the standards under the General (Discretionary) Criteria. Second, the rule is not about fire safety or it would appear under the General Criteria. Third, the legislative history of the 19-lot rule explains nothing about its purpose or intent. See attached legislative history excerpt fi•om the 2001 zoning code update in Exhibit B. The 19-lot rule appeared in the first full draft of the new code in April 1999 without comment. 1. Staff is asking the Hearing Official to apply this standard contrary to its terms. The Staff Report concurs that West Amazon meets the definition in this standard because "street" in the code is defined to include both improved and unimproved right of way. The Staff Report is recommending that you apply the standard contrary to its terms. Staff is recommending the Hearing Official ignore this standard for policy reasons unrelated to the standard. The Hearing Official will not be able to explain a denial based on the language of the standard. 2. The 19-lot standard may not be applied to deny development. The Needed Housing Statute ensures the right to develop under clear and objective standards, not the right to be denied under clear and objective standards.