APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEW (3-31-17)

A.^, e - - Planning Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form - Planning Division Application File Name Capital Hill (PDT 17-1) Date: March 31, 2017 Applicant's Name: Cynthia and Tom Dreyer Zoning: R-1 Representative's Name: Carol Schirmer-Schirmer Satre Group Reviewed by: Nicholas Gioello Phone: (541) 682-5453 E-mail: Nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us General Staff notes that on the City application page, the box was checked for Planned Unit Development Approval Comments: Criteria - General (EC 9.8320). Also, the written narrative addresses the criteria of EC 9.8320, therefore the application will be assessed by staff under the General Criteria and not under Needed Housing. Since a significant amount of the site is to be preserved via individual lot owners as well as tract A by the neighborhood association, a copy of the draft CC&R's should be submitted in order to review preservation measures. Please review the attached checklist from Public Works and comments by Eugene/Springfield Fire Department. Written Statement Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 1. Detailed written statement that describes the proposed use of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ property and how the proposed planned unit development satisfies all applicable approval criteria (Section 9.8300 - 9.8310 and 9.8320 or 9.8325 of the Eugene Code). 2. Written statement includes the names, addresses, and telephone ® ❑ ❑ ❑ numbers of the design team members, and designation of the professional coordinator for the project. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Clearly states whether the application is to be reviewed under standard or Needed Housing criteria. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 4. Clearly states whether site is included on City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. (1) Please review the attached Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2295, which is the Purpose Statements and Recommendations for the South Hills Study. The Resolution has a statement in it that says "the policies adopted by this Resolution are applicable to the area identified in the study as being south of 18th Avenue, above an elevation of 500 feet". Accordingly, we treat the Purpose Statements and Recommendations as additional criteria for this type of application. Therefore, please revise page 23 of your narrative to address all the Policies and Recommendations of the South Hills Study. Beginning on page 36 regarding EC 9.6815 Street Connectivity, you discuss that "no right-of-way exists in Hendricks park, but Capital Drive creates a connection in that direction, should there be a need in the future". Is it possible to connect to other City streets through Hendricks Parks? This concept should be discussed with Comments appropriate Parks and Open Space staff, in order to investigate the opportunity for alternative access to the site either now or in the future. On page 45 (and page 54) of the narrative you indicate that lots 7, 15-20 and 23 are larger than the maximum 13,500 square feet. It would be helpful to provide the amount of square footage to be preserved for natural resource protection, and the remaining usable square feet of those lots. For example, lot 16 is 20,712 square feet but the preserved area totals 8,075 square, thereby reducing the usable area of the lot to 12,637 square feet. (4) Page 31 of the narrative states the project is not in the Goal 5 inventory, however, staff the site is listed as Goal 5. Please amend the narrative accordingly and address the Goal 5 criteria in EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2). Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Page 1 of 5