My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony – Open Record City Staff Memo – July 31, 2024
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2024
>
PDT 24-1
>
Public Testimony – Open Record City Staff Memo – July 31, 2024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2024 3:10:24 PM
Creation date
8/1/2024 5:00:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
24
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
BRAEWOOD HILLS 3RD ADDITION
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
7/31/2024
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
316
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
8 <br /> <br />The Planning Commission, in its final order on appeal (May 15, 2019) affirmed this condition (see <br />Attachment E, Planning Commission Final Order for PDT 18-4). Staff confirms that the applicant did <br />not submit any documentation or other evidence as part of the subject that demonstrates that the <br />area now identified as Lot 39 was part of a larger lot that existed prior to August 1, 2001, nor does <br />the applicant argue that Lot 39 existed on August 1, 2001. As explained in detail above, ORS <br />197A.420 and the middle housing rules and Model Code only require the City to allow middle housing <br />on lots or parcels that allow for the development of single-family housing. Because Lot 39 did not <br />exist on August 1, 2001, no development is allowed on that lot, including no detached single-unit <br />dwellings, no middle housing and no land divisions. <br /> <br />Instead, the applicant’s attorney, Bill Kloos submitted a letter dated July 10, 2024, and argued during <br />his public hearing presentation that staff’s assertion that the site is mapped as Goal 5 “Natural Site of <br />Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation” is not backed up with acknowledgment <br />documents and in fact is contrary to what was acknowledged. Kloos argues any acknowledged Goal 5 <br />resource in this area must be referenced to an acknowledged map, beginning with “Map 3, General <br />Plan Technical Report.” Kloos submitted a copy of this map with the July 10 letter. However, this map <br />is not a part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory as formally adopted by Ordinance 20351 or <br />any other formal adoption process known to staff or otherwise demonstrated as a matter of record <br />by the applicant. <br /> <br />Rather, as stated in the staff report: <br /> <br />The subject property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, per the April 12, <br />1978, Scenic Sites Working Paper, which was adopted as an inventory of significant Goal 5 <br />resources within the City of Eugene by Ordinance No. 20351. The Scenic Sites Working Paper <br />designates the subject site as one of the Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent <br />and Plentiful Vegetation. Additionally, a protected upland stream corridor on the subject <br />property is listed on the City’s adopted Goal 5 Water Resources Inventory (2005), as reflected <br />by the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone for this property. <br /> <br />The applicant does not present any evidence to refute the above statements, nor does the applicant <br />provide any evidence that supports Kloos’ argument that the April 12, 1978, Scenic Sites Working <br />Paper is not acknowledged. Staff considers the subject property’s Goal 5 status due to its location on <br />the Scenic Sites map as a settled matter according to the prior Tentative PUD approval (PDT 18-4), <br />wherein the record shows that the applicant agreed with the subject property’s Goal 5 status <br />according to the Scenic Sites map. Ordinance 20351 and the associated Scenic Sites Working Paper <br />are also attached and included in the record for ease of reference (see Attachment F). Given these <br />new questions raised about the status of the subject site on the map, staff was able to once again <br />clearly locate the subject property for purposes of reviewing the current set of applications, and <br />provides the following depiction for ease of reference (also as shown briefly during staff’s public <br />hearing presentation): <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.