Eugene Hearing Official <br />July 31, 2024 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />• Development of any duplex, triplex or quadplex dwellings (defined as “Middle Housing”); <br />• Development of anything on Lot 39 (might be tried later under applicable standards) <br />• Development of a stream crossing of a Goal 5 creek (will be done later under applicable <br />standards) <br /> <br />There are a couple of significant dustups thus far. <br /> <br />Staff seek to use the code’s 9.8320(8)(a) 901’ limitation to impose Condition 20 to bar any future <br />development application for Lot 39. First, as explained in the PUD Narrative, neither a tentative <br />nor final PUD decision authorizes any type of “development” as that term is defined in the code. <br />EC 9.0500. A PUD proposal is a picture that provides the parameters for future “development” <br />that is authorized by the subdivision approval; setting parameters is not approving development. <br />Second, Condition 20 would be improper because it is not needed to find compliance with any <br />standard. Lot 20 may be sold to neighbors or the City for private or public park use; testimony <br />indicates neighbors are interested, including Mr. Woodward’s client; under the broad definition <br />of “development” in EC 9.0500, the new owner could not even shovel dirt on the property, and <br />no park facilities would be allowed. Third, most significantly, Condition 20 would prevent an <br />owner in the future from applying for Middle Housing, consistent with state law; it would be <br />contrary to state law because it would prohibit Middle Housing on R-1 land that the Middle <br />Housing Statute says must be afforded MH rights. <br /> <br />The second big issue relates to facilities and infrastructure. There are just a handful of opposition <br />issues relevant to the standards. The hearing letter of Chas. Wooward IV dated 7/10 hits all of <br />them in summary fashion. I will use the topics in his letter to organize this discussion presented <br />here. Thus far we have “Testimony Prior to 7/2” appended to the Agenda Packet, and <br />“Testimony from 7/3 to 7/10” separately compiled on the city website <br /> <br />The topics in the Woodward are: <br /> <br />1. PUD and Subdivision: What Standards apply with an unacknowledged MH ordinance <br />2. PUD and Subdivision: City Street Connectivity standards in EC 9.6815 et seq <br />3. PUD and Subdivision: City Utility and Stormwater standards. <br />4. PUD and Subdivision: Lot Size standards and Lot 39; EC 9.2670 and 9.2671 <br /> <br />1. What Standards apply with an unacknowledged MH ordinance? The MH Statute, Rule <br />and Code prohibit the city from using its /PD overlay zone, including the 901’ development <br />prohibition. <br />