Staff has therefore evaluated the proposal under the general (i.e. discretionary) approval <br />approval under the general approval criteria, rather than the needed housing approval <br />criteria. <br /> <br />Staff agrees with the assertion that the PUD cannot be developed as proposed under the <br />Needed Housing approval criteria. However, staff disagrees with statements made by the <br />cannot be developed at all if the <br />Needed Housing approval criteria are applied. Based on a review of the site plan submitted <br />by the applicant, staff believe that at least two additional units could be developed on the site <br />if the applicant chose to proceed under the needed housing approval criteria. <br /> <br />In addition, staff notes that ORS 197.307 requires the City to adopt clear and objective <br />approval criteria for needed housing. ORS 197.307 does not entitle every developer to a set <br />of clear and objective approval criteria that guarantee approval of every proposed needed <br />housing development. The City has adopted clear and objective approval criteria for PUDs as <br />required by ORS 197.307. When applied to this particular proposed development, those clear <br />and objective approval criteria would appear to prevent the developer from building his <br />preferred development. In this situation, the developer has two choices: the developer can <br />either rework the proposed development so it complies with the clear and objective approval <br />criteria; or the developer can choose to proceed (as the developer has done in this case) <br />under the discretionary General PUD approval criteria. <br /> <br />On March 5, 2018 staff received additional materials from Bill Kloos, again asserting: <br /> <br />This application is entitled to the protection of the Needed Housing Statute. <br /> <br />The City may only apply discretionary standards if the applicant has the right to proceed under <br /> <br />clear and objective standards. ORS 197.307(6). <br />The application demonstrates that the <br /> <br />Needed Housing standards in EC 9.8325. <br /> <br />standards in this review are contrary to the law. <br /> <br />that no units could be built under the Needed Housing track of the Eugene Code because of the <br />existing site constraints (i.e. 20% slopes, 900 foot elevation, etc.). He asked several times if staff <br />could demonstrate how two additional units could be built on the site as stated in the staff report. <br /> <br />Staff Response to <br />In review of the various materials presented by the applicant, particularly including the site map <br />provided to show existing site constraints and the layout of existing legal lots (see Attachment A for <br />ease of reference), it appears that, in addition to the four existing dwellings on the site, the southern <br />area of the subject site could be partitioned into two or three additional parcels. This area includes an <br />undeveloped legal lot that is below 900 feet in elevation with over 100 feet of public street frontage <br />on Capital Drive. Based on the PUD applicability trigger at EC 9.8305(1)(b), partitions of property <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />