Building 2 setback should follow the same calculation for solar setback, yet the ROW width would be <br />different. EC 9.2790 (4)(b) Existing off-site shade would apply to TL 200 (Map 17 04 24 13) because of <br />the large cedar trees located at the southern edge of the lot, if the trees were to remain. However, if the <br />proposed PUD is approved, the same type of PUD would be possible on TL 200, which would likely <br />consist of an access road along the south property line. The cedar trees would need to be removed for the <br />most appropriate street access. The value of the neighboring property, TL 200, will be diminished by the <br />increased shade from Building 2, if the solar setback was not applied. Even if an access road was not <br />continued eastward from the end of Oakleigh Lane, several of the cedar trees will likely need to be <br />removed because of a southerly lean and potentially may need to be removed due to illness or from <br />distress from the proposed construction of the OMC development. <br />Building 2 should have a setback from the North Property line of 18.75 feet to the shade point (dormer- <br />type ridge line on north wall of Unit 10) which would put the north wall of Building 2 (at the dormer) at <br />20.75 feet south of the property line between TL 200 and TL 400. The PUD application presents a public <br />access path along the north of TL 400 which would provide access to the public land east of TL 400. The <br />City of Eugene has stated on Page 2 of the Public Works Referral response that the proposed bike path <br />connector will require ROW dedication, 13 feet in width. If the bike path were to be City ROW, then the <br />new north property line of TL 400 would be 13 feet south of the existing north property line. This would <br />put the north wall (at the dormer) of Building 2 at 33.75 feet south of the existing property line, (13 feet <br />[ROW width] + 18.75 feet [setback] + 2 feet [eave depth from wall] = 33.75 feet). <br />Shade point definition from EC 9.05 <br />Shade Point. The part of a building that casts the longest shadow onto the adjacent northern lot(s) when <br />the sun is at an altitude of 22.6 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 30 degrees east and west of true <br />south; except a shadow caused by a narrow object such as a mast or whip antenna, a dish antenna with a <br />diameter of 3 feet or less, a chimney, utility pole or wire. The height of the shade point shall be measured <br />from the shade point to lowest grade directly below the shade point. If the shade point is located at the <br />north end of the ridgeline of a building oriented within 45 degrees of the true north-south line, the shade <br />point may be reduced by 3 feet. If a structure has a roof oriented within 45 degrees of the true east-west <br />line with a pitch that is flatter than 5 feet (vertical) in 12 feet (horizontal), the shade point will be the eave <br />of the roof. If such a roof has a pitch that is 5 feet in 12 feet or steeper, the shade point will be the peak of <br />the roof. (See Figure 9.2795(2) Shade Point Height (SPH) Measurement, Figure 9.2795(2)(a) R-1 <br />Solar Setback Calculation, and Figure 9.2795(2)(b) R-2 Solar Setback Calculation.) <br />A follow-up letter to the City was provided by the applicant on September 27, 2013 which attempted to <br />properly calculate the solar setback. The calculation was done more accurately. However, the future <br />property line was not used. The future north property line should be 22.5 feet south of the existing <br />property line according to the street connectivity section of this report, so the setback distance should be <br />measured from the new north property line not the existing one as the applicant has done in the follow-up <br />letter to the City. The solar setback from the north property line should be 12.7 feet as calculated in the <br />follow-up letter from Will Dixon which includes the 3 ft SPH subtraction associated with the north-south <br />trending ridge of the dormer on the north wall. Following this setback from the new property line, this <br />would push Building 1 (north wall) another 14 feet south of it's proposed location. If Buildings 1 and 2 <br />were moved the proper distance from the north property line to comply with solar setbacks, this would <br />reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings along the north property line, it would allow for more screening <br />such as trees, and which would show a little bit of compatiblity with the surrounding neighborhood (see <br />Neighborhood Character section above). <br />There is no reason to exempt the solar setbacks, so the neighborhood urges the City planning staff and <br />Hearings Official to require the proper solar setbacks along the north property line. This could <br />significantly alter the site plan. Buildings may have to be moved or units reduced which could make the <br />Page 19 of 20 <br />