Planning Commission Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

EC 9.5500 defines "driveway": The area located outside of the public right-of-way that abuts the access connection and allows for vehicles to move to or from a development site. EC 9.5500(11)(b) defines "parking drive": Parking drives are driveways lined with head-in parking spaces, diagonal parking spaces, garages, or any combination thereof along a significant portion of their length. Parking drives for multiple family developments with more than 20 units shall be designed so as to emit no through motor vehicle movements. On pages 13-14 of the decision document, the Hearings Official agrees with the Applicant's net density calculation. The staff findings on page 22 of the report to the Hearings Official, adopted by the Hearings Official to address EC 9.2750, were as follows: The minimum density for the subject site is 15 units per acre as established by the /ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone at EC 9.4290 * * The R-2 base zone of the subject site provides that a maximum density of 28 units per acre is allowed * * The applicant also provides a calculation on sheet Al of the May 11, 2018 application materials. The calculation identifies the entire site area as being 3.59 acres, subtracts the .21 acres to be dedicated for Lombard Street, and concludes that 94 units is the maximum density considering 28 units per net acre is allowed. Concerning whether the internal vehicular circulation areas meet the definition of "street" and, therefore, should be excluded from total acreage for the purpose of calculating density; the Hearings Official concludes that Eugene Code treats driveways and parking drives as separate and distinct from streets. Thus, the parking drives do not have to be subtracted from the net density calculation. The Hearings Official also reasons that the leasing office and maintenance buildings are not public facilities that must be excluded from the net density calculation. Lastly, the Hearings Official concludes that the open space area along the east side of the subject property is not open to the public and therefore, would qualify as common open space for the exclusive use of the residents. Summary of Appellants' Argument Appellants argue that the Hearings Official erred in his inclusion of "paved circulation areas", the leasing office, maintenance building, and open space on the eastern portion of the property as part of the acreage of land considered part of the residential use of the subject lot. According to the Appellants, the "circulation areas" meet the EC definition of "streets". Additionally, the leasing office, maintenance building, and open space areas should be excluded as they are not "for the exclusive use of the residents of the development." Instead, the Appellants argue that Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 8