My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1st Open Record Period: City Attorney Comments
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
1st Open Record Period: City Attorney Comments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2018 11:34:00 AM
Creation date
3/22/2018 11:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/21/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />Date: March 21, 2018 <br /> <br />To: Virginia Gustafson Lucker <br /> <br />From: Lauren A. Sommers <br /> <br />Subject: Capital Hill PUD PDT 17-1, Citys Response to Applicants Arguments re <br />Needed Housing Statutes and South Hills Study <br /> <br />Needed Housing/Clear and Objective Approval Standards <br /> <br />The applicant asserts that where an applicant is entitled to clear and objective <br />standards but there is no path to approval of the applicants chosen development under <br />the Citys adopted clear and objective standards, the City may not apply any approval <br />criteria to the development. The applicants arguments misconstrue the applicable law. <br /> <br />ORS 197.307 entitles a residential developer in Eugene to choose between two paths <br />for seeking approval of a residential development. The applicant is entitled to submit a <br />residential development proposal that is designed to address a set of prescriptive clear <br />and objective approval standards. In the alternative, the applicant may choose to <br />submit a residential development proposal that is designed to address a set of <br />discretionary approval standards. Contrary to applicants argument, the statute does <br />not entitle an applicant to approval of a proposed development that fails to meet the <br />approval standards applicable to the submittal path the applicant has chosen. ORS <br />197.307(4) does not deprive local governments of the authority to adopt and require a <br />developer to meet standards for residential housing development. ORS 197.307(4) <br />simply requires that the City to provide the path for review under prescriptive clear and <br />objective standards. ORS 197.307(6) allows the City to also offer an alternative path for <br />review under discretionary standards. <br /> <br />The City of Eugene has adopted two sets of approval criteria for Planned Unit <br />Developments (PUDs). EC 9.8325 contains the clear and objective or needed <br />housing approval criteria. EC 9.8320 contains the discretionary or general PUD <br />approval criteria. Every PUD applicant has two options; 1) choose the certainty of clear <br />and objective standards and tailor the application to meet the approval criteria contained <br />in EC 9.8325 (the needed housing track); or 2) choose the discretionary standards <br />located in EC 9.8320 (the general track), which give the applicant more flexibility to <br />pursue the applicants chosen development. <br /> <br />Here, the applicant chose to utilize the general discretionary criteria of EC 9.8320. The <br />applicant now spends several pages of its March 5, 2018, hearing memo arguing that <br /> <br />{00273486;1 } <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.