Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

® The final PUD plans shall state that the development will occur in accMVffJ6 with the geotechnical recommendations provided in the GeoScience, Inc. report dated February 4, 2007. With the addition of this condition and the revised findings above, the PC finds that the requirements of EC 9.8325(7)(d) and the related standards at EC 9.6710(6) have been met. (The condition of approval is listed as #18 at the end of this Final Order.) SEN Appeal Issue #7• Lot Standards (See Applicant/HBA Appeal Issues #3 and #4 above) This issue has two parts: a) lot dimension standards; and b) solar lot standards, both of which are addressed above, under Appeal -Issue #3 and #4. SEN Appeal Issue #S: Compliance with EC 9.7007 Neighborhood /Applicant Meeting SEN asserts that there are two plans being evaluated as part of the subject request: the initial 75-lot plan; and the 47 lot alternate plan, addressing the staff recommendations. The SEN claims procedural error because only the 75-lot plan was presented at the pre-application Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting, required by EC 9.7007. PC Findings: The Applicant held two neighborhood meetings with SEN (December 8, 2011 and January 10, 2012). At these meetings, the Applicant presented its original 75-lot plan. Then, the Applicant submitted the 75-lot plan with its application. The Applicant. later submitted a 47-lot plan that the HO Official regarded "as simply illustrative of how the applicant could comply with the conditions of approval -recommended in the original (June 2012) staff report" and not as a revised application. At page 7 of its appeal statement, SEN argues that the "[c]ode required the Applicant to share its actual proposed site plan with Southeast Neighbors prior to submitting an application. EC 9.7007(8). The Applicant has never completed this requirement for its 47-lot Application. Its failure to do so requires the- PC to deny the 47-lot Application in total." The PC finds this the issue is beyond the scope its review. Under the Eugene Code, the neighborhood meeting is an application requirement that is considered by the City as part of completeness review under EC 9.7015. The code provides that a PUD application will not be deemed complete for City consideration unless it includes specific documentation of the neighborhood meeting; EC 9.7007(11); EC 9.7010. The code also provides that "[i]f the site plan submitted with the application does not substantially conform to the site plan provided at the [neighborhood] meeting, the applicant shall be required to hold a new neighborhood/a.pplicant meeting." EC 9,7007(12). In this case, when the application was submitted, staff determined that the Applicant submitted the required documentation and that the site plan submitted with the application substantially conformed to the one provided at the neighborhood meeting. The application was deemed complete, and the HO's evaluation process began. Final Order -Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 25 28