Cottages at Delta Ridge PUD <br />Reeder to HO Final Argument <br />April 29, 2021 <br />Page 3of4 <br />"the applicant is using alleged `internal aisles versus public or private <br />streets' in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the net density <br />calculation that excludes private and public streets from the calculation <br />under EC 9.2751. The effect is to increase density beyond what is <br />permitted by the code." <br />Although the Applicant need meet only one of the two criteria for <br />adjustment, Ms. Sandow shows that the Application's site plan, meets <br />both of the criteria ("provides an equivalent or greater degree of <br />vehicular and pedestrian circulation" and "traditional block patterns that <br />reduce the apparent scale of large developments by breaking up the site <br />into smaller land units"). <br />The Applicant's supposed motivation for increasing net density (as <br />argued by the Cooks) is not relevant. However, it should be noted that <br />the overall net density calculation for project (11.71 dwelling units/acre) <br />does not come close to reaching the R-1 zone density maximum (14 <br />du/a). If maximizing density was the goal of the Applicant, the density <br />would be closer to 14 du/a maximum rather than less than 12 du/a. <br />More importantly, even if the drive aisle were developed as private <br />streets, the Applicant would still meet the net density requirements. <br />Additionally, if the proposed drive aisles were required to be public or <br />private streets, the Applicant's site plan could have been revised, had it <br />been necessary to meet the net density requirement, to include larger and <br />bulkier residential apartments buildings. Instead, the Applicant chose to <br />include a variety of smaller buildings that create a vibrant mix of housing <br />types. The plan is to use the land efficiently as provided in the purpose <br />statement of the PUD ordinance. There is simply no need for public or <br />private streets to serve other adjacent properties. It would be redundant <br />and wasteful to require the drive aisles be public or private streets. It <br />would not serve the community any better than the drive aisles. <br />Lastly, it should be noted that the previous development to the south <br />("Delta Ridge PUD"), owned and developed by the Applicant, was <br />approved for an adjustment to the block size requirements. That project <br />uses drive aisles rather than private or public streets. Mr. Malone, as <br />attorney for the Julie Hulme in Hulme v. City of Eugene, 79 Or LUBA 218 <br />(2019), rev'd in part and remanded in part, 299 Or App 76 (2019), <br />unsuccessfully argued that drive aisles should excluded from the acreage <br />calculation that is used to calculate net density for a planned unit <br />development. LUBA rejected that argument and the Oregon Court of <br />Appeals affirmed LUBA on that issue. Hulme, 299 Or App at 88-90. <br />Of= cr vio"F: I'G78) " 1 J 28l 5 3 P) 1, 1 A t:- 5.:... )OP) <br />=FCP`(n;Cl`egwI r,'I :,is~ rr;n f .1, i 0-rr +r''l 1[l1 <br />creccnI ndUSC. --oni <br />