My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2018 3:49:29 PM
Creation date
4/9/2018 3:49:26 PM
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
Document_Date
4/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 23 <br /> <br />In summary, the as <br />if the development proceeds as proposed to be conditioned. Mr. Schlieder has not demonstrated <br />otherwise. <br /> <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(7) Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public <br />services and facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the <br />services and facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future availability <br />requires evidence of at least one of the following: <br /> <br />(a)Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public <br />agencies. <br /> <br />(b)Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written <br />commitment by the applicant or other party to provide private services <br />and facilities. <br /> <br />(c)A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for <br />offsetting all added public costs or early commitment of public funds <br />made necessary by development, submitted on a form acceptable to the <br />city manager. <br /> <br />1. As explained in our March 5 Standards Spreadsheet, the touchstone standard here, <br />Needed Housing Statute. <br /> <br />2. The Staff Report at 34-finds that adequate public facilities and services are either <br />presently available, or can be available, and can be extended to serve the proposed development, <br />standard. <br />should reach the same conclusion, too. <br /> <br />The two most contentious substantive issues here are adequacy of the water supply and roads. <br /> <br />This part of the Staff Report reviews the transportation analysis in summary fashion, with <br />reference to the detailed December 8 analysis of the <br />study. It reaffirms the conclusion that transportation facilities are adequate for this project. <br /> <br />The Staff Report also finds compliance with adequacy standard for water supply. The staff <br />analysis, summarizing referral comments from EWEB, explain that water is available but that a <br />new pump station is needed in the adjacent Hendricks Park to serve this site. The applicant <br />concurs with the recommended condition of approval requiring a financial guarantee in <br />conjunction with final platting. <br /> <br />Looking more closely at the standards for proving up on public facilities for water in EC <br />9.8320(7), the applicant looked at three options stated in the standard. Option ( <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.