My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant Final Argument Testimony - 4-29-2021
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2020
>
PDT 20-4
>
Applicant Final Argument Testimony - 4-29-2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2021 4:00:19 PM
Creation date
5/6/2021 9:52:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
20
File Sequence Number
4
Application Name
Delta Cottages
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
4/29/2021
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Cottages at Delta Ridge PUD <br />Reeder to HO Final Argument <br />April 29, 2021 <br />Page 4of4 <br />In short, it should be emphasized that the Cooks do not challenge the <br />Applicant's findings regarding meeting both standards to justify the <br />adjustment; the Cooks object to the effect that drive aisles have on the <br />net density calculation. As stated above, that consideration is not <br />relevant to the approval criteria for the requested adjustment." <br />Ms. Vaccher claims that "[t]he purpose of the net density calculation and block <br />requirement is undermined if the applicant can replace streets with drive aisles or parking aisles <br />that are not excluded from the net density calculation." Ms. Vaacher is incorrect. The Eugene <br />Code specifically contemplates situations such as this wherein a PUD proposal does not fit <br />neatly into the "one-size-fits-all" development standards. The purpose statement of the PUD <br />ordinance states that flexibility and efficiency are goals of the PUD ordinance. Hence, the <br />Eugene Code provides for flexibility through the adjustment review process. Approving the <br />adjustment of the block standards achieves the purposes of the PUD ordinance. <br />Lastly, and perhaps more to the point, approving the adjustment to the block <br />requirements in this particular case does not increase the maximum density of 14 dwelling <br />units per acre. The Applicant's architect, Anna Thompson of Milbrandt Architects, stated in <br />Exhibit F to my April 22nd letter as follows: <br />"Using the final Net site area for density calculation purposes of 53.45 <br />acres, our 626 proposed units has a proposed density of 11.71 dwelling <br />units per acre, well below the 14 allowed per code... Following the `math' <br />as the testimony suggests, under a scenario where the same site layout <br />was proposed, but instead designated all of the main connecting parking <br />drives (Aisles A, B, C, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) as private roads providing the 45 <br />foot right-of-way for private road standards, the additional right-of-way <br />dedication would amount to 5.52 acres of the development site. If this <br />area were subtracted from the current 53.45 acre net area, the net site <br />area for density calculation purposes under this scenario would be 47.93 <br />acres which in the R-1 zone would still allow a maximum of 671 units. <br />The proposed 626 units would still be in compliance at 13.06 dwelling <br />units per acre." (Emphasis added). <br />There is simply no merit to Ms. Vaccer's argument, which is really just an extension of <br />the Cook's argument regarding the adjustment to the block standards. For all the reasons <br />addressed previously and herein, the Application should be approved with the conditions <br />proposed by the City. Thank you for your careful consideration of the Application. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />/s/Micheal M. Reeder <br />Micheal M. Reeder <br />OF cr vio"c: I,e-'581 21'J 28L5 :3 P) 1, 1 A%,r... 5.:... JUh <br />Fcp'(n;ri-egrrl s;•r:.ise rr n- f xi_ -ie. C.rr..,r 1) ;:1[l1 <br />crc'ccnlAndU_O._-oni <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.