Appeal Materials (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

RECEIVED Eugene Planning Commission May 7, 2018 Page 2 M AY - 7 2018 CITY OF EUGENE PLANNING DIVISION (a) The legal issue the Applicant is entitled to only clear and objective standards even under the General Track of EC 9.8320 because a PUD is required for development but no PUD is approvable on this site under the Needed Housing Track of EC 9.8325. The Applicant asserted throughout that the City may not apply any discretionary standards, even under the General Track of EC 9.8320, because the applicant could not get aM PUD approved on this site under the Needed Housing track in EC 9.8325. See Final Argument at 2-11. The Applicant invoked the Needed Housing Statute, which applies directly, and which says the City may not apply any non-clear and objective standards unless the Applicant "retains the option of proceeding" under clear and objective standards. This request was based on ORS 197.307(6): (6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if. (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section." [Emphasis added] The Applicant explained why any development of this site requires a PUD approval, and why no PUD could be approved on this site under the clear and objective standards of the Needed Housing track in EC 9.8325. Hearing Letter at 4 item 4; Final Argument at 2; March 3, 2017 Letter at 3. The HO understood the Applicant's reading of the statute but concluded that the applicant is reading the statute incorrectly. HO at 10 para 2: "Specifically, the applicant argues that under ORS 197.307(6), "the City may only apply standards that are not clear and objective if the applicant also has the right to develop the property under clear and objective standards as provided for in ORS 197.307(4)." There is no support under the statute for the applicant's requested interpretation of it." The HO also understood the Applicant's theory about how the Needed Housing Statute directs what the City may do under the code. HO at 11 para 2: