City that on steep slopes, from the base of the slope, the actual building height could be up to 47 <br />feet, and still be within the 30-foot building height limit. They argue that the excessive height is <br />not permitted, and would result in a scale, bulk and height that dominates, rather than blends in, <br />with the area's natural characteristics. This argument misconstrues the height limitation. <br />The applicant has not requested modification of the height limit. For any residential <br />development on a slope (including the surrounding established residential development), and <br />based on the slope and the roof pitch, the city's standard calculation effectively permits a total of <br />up to 47 feet within the 30- foot height limitation. The city's clarification adds that the City <br />Council has added an allowance for greater roof pitches based on its view that "steeper roof <br />pitches [are] more aesthetic and create less bulk or mass for a house." (Response Committee <br />March 7, 2018 Written Hearing Testimony, Exhibit X (email memo from Mike McKerrow, <br />Eugene Building and Permit Services)). Because the applicant has not requested any <br />modification from the building heights allowed in the R-1 zone, any future building would be <br />required to comply with the same height requirements as applicable in the surrounding <br />neighborhood.' <br />With the additional protections provided through private preservation areas on the eastern lots, <br />common open space (Tract A), and the clustering of the proposed homesites, the applicant has <br />demonstrated that the proposed development will blend with, rather than dominate, the natural <br />characteristics of the area. In combination with configuration of the proposed development and <br />the clustered open space, the applicable residential development standards for the R-1 zone will <br />ensure general compatibility with the surrounding residential area and consistency with the <br />policy language above. <br />That all proposed road locations he reviewed to ensure minimum grade disturbance and <br />minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope, <br />topographic or other conditions. <br />Finding: The proposed development will be accessed from the existing Capital Drive, which, as <br />discussed below, will be widened and repaved to City standards, with minimal shallow grading, <br />north of its intersection with Cresta De Ruta Street. <br />Within the development, the applicant proposes a private road, Cupola Drive, to be located <br />within the existing footprint of an existing vehicular accessway. The applicant's <br />geotechnical/geologic investigation indicates that the proposed location of the private drive will <br />require the least amount of grading and fill, with minor cut slopes on the uphill side. City staff <br />report that they have walked this part of the site and agree with the applicant's assessment that <br />the existing vehicular accessway, which is currently cut into the slope, is a logical location to <br />establish the new private road. Slopes increase to the east of the trail and locating the new road <br />further down the slope would require more extensive grading and retaining walls and result in <br />the loss of more trees and vegetation. Improving Capital Drive in its current location (within the <br />existing right-of-way) and utilizing the existing cuts into the hillside for the new private road will <br />ensure that the necessary cut and fill is minimized to the greatest extent practical. The proposed <br />' If at the time of proposed construction, the developer proposes to exceed the height or any other development <br />standard, the developer would be required to seek a modification from the city. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 24 <br />