Capital Hill PUD: PDT 17-01 <br />Completeness Review Response <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />The request for these types of qualities and characteristics are typical of a Planned Unit <br />Development process, however, it is a part of the process that needs some re-evaluation. <br />Technically this project is required to be a Planned Unit Development. It is in the South Hills <br />above a certain elevation and therefor is required to go through the PUD process. For all intents <br />and purposes this is really a subdivision with an extra requirement of a PUD process. <br />The purpose statement for the PUD does not include any reference to the nature of the buildings. <br />The purpose statement for a PUD simply asks about shared uses of services and facilities, the <br />compatibility of land uses, dwelling types with respect to meeting needs of all income groups, <br />preservation of natural resources, and clustering of the residential units. <br />A quick perusal of definitions of PUD on the internet reveals much of the same. The descriptions <br />speak primarily about compatibility of uses, clustering of units for more efficient use of resources <br />(utilities, roads), and preserving open space. <br />It isn't until EC 9.8320 (4) that the words bulk, height and scale come in. <br />There are no clear and objective criteria in the code to address bulk, height and scale other than <br />to reference the building height limits in the designated zone and the lot coverage standards. In <br />this case the zone is R-1 and the building height limit is 25 feet and the maximum lot coverage is <br />50%, the same limits as the houses currently existing in the area. Other than these criteria the <br />remaining subjective criteria requires the applicant to guess at how this standards can be <br />adequately addressed. There is no right answer and no criteria upon which to base that answer <br />except the reviewer's personal opinion. <br />A cursory examination of Lane County public records shows that the majority of the houses within <br />closest proximity to the development site range from 1500 sf to 5000 sf, with the majority of them <br />falling within the range of 2000 - 4000 sf. This proposed development will be constructed <br />similarly which ensures it will be compatible with the neighborhood and blend or fit in. <br />Buildings can be located anywhere on the lot that is not considered a conservation area. There <br />are no building envelopes proposed. The development site is already scaled back to 3 units per <br />acre (well below the 5 units per acre allowed) and over 30% of the site is set aside for open <br />space and preservation. The buildable area is clustered around the existing and proposed <br />circulation system providing maximum efficiency for new roads and installation of new utilities. <br />The purpose statement of the PUD is met. Imposing further limits through guessing at building <br />envelopes presumes that a genuine effort has not been made to limit impacts. <br />With all of the above, and 30 percent of over 13 acres preserved, a legitimate question might be: <br />What other qualities are we trying to preserve or achieve by requesting a building envelop, that <br />hasn't been achieved currently? <br />Supporting Documents <br />60. Submitted a Geotechnical Analysis. <br />• As previously discussed the South Hills Study is applicable and has some specific language <br />about what should be looked at, both on-site and off-site, by a "qualifying engineering geologist". <br />Please refer to the attached Resolution No. 2295 and Exhibit A - Purpose Statements and <br />Recommendations. The Purpose Statements and Recommendations are considered as <br />additional criteria for this PUD application. The Geotechnical analysis should be revised so that it <br />is clear that the policies in the South Hills Study were addressed regarding soil depth and slope <br />for all formations, basalt flows and Eugene Formation and what soil formations or categories <br />listed in the policy might exist, and the adequate review of the off-site aspect (e.g. where any test <br />pits or other evaluation was conducted off-site). For example, Figure-1 of the submitted <br />Geotechnical/Geological Investigation calls out a reported slide on the west side of Capital Drive <br />adjacent to Cresta De Ruta, which staff also observed during the recent site visit. This area is <br />outside the property boundary but would most likely be impacted during the proposed road <br />Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 m Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540 <br />