Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 8 The applicant’s proposal for single-unit development on 15.47 acres with 38 lots has a density of 2.45 units per gross acre, which is well within the Metro Plan and applicable SHS density limitation. However, if the applicant chooses to develop the lots with middle housing, the maximum density of 8 units per acre established in the SHS does not apply to middle housing and instead the Middle Housing requirements, which require 4,500 square feet per lot or parcel, would be applicable. The applicant’s written statement includes a table demonstrating that all lots within the proposed subdivision exceed 4,500 square feet and therefore, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and cottage clusters would be allowed on each of the originally proposed 38 lots. In accordance with Policy A.9, the maximum density for middle housing is not otherwise limited beyond the minimum lot standards described above. The proposed development complies with this criterion. EC 9.8325(3): For areas not included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD preserves existing natural resources by compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards Finding: The City staff report recommends a finding that this criterion is inapplicable because the subject property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5, based on its inclusion in the April 12, 1978, Scenic Sites Working Paper, which is adopted as an inventory of significant Goal 5 resource within the City of Eugene by Ordinance No. 20351. As the staff report explains, the Scenic Sites Working Paper designates the subject site as one of the Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. The City entered into the Record an undated and unlabeled map that the City states is the “Figure H2” that is identified as “Metro Plan Update, Natural Assets and Constraints-Working Papers Scenic Areas.” According to staff’s calculations, this “Figure H-2” generally identifies the entire subject property (as well as a large swath of the City’s South, Southwest and East Hills) as being within the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Within that general area, a protected upland stream corridor on the subject property is listed on the City’s adopted Goal 5 Water Resources Inventory (2005), as reflected by the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone for this property.12 12 The written staff report also explained that, subject to some potential exceptions, because the property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6885 would apply directly at the time of future development depending on the timing and scope of tree removal, lot size, and other factors that may require a separate tree removal permit under the requirements of EC Chapter 6. However, at the public hearing on the application, the staff explained that the staff report was in error and that because of changes to the City’s clear and objective standards, the acknowledged Goal 5 resources that have no specific environmental protections in place are no longer subject to any protections. As staff stated during the public hearing: “Unfortunately, the entire site is identified as a Goal 5 resource due to its inclusion on the Scenic Sites Working Paper, which was adopted as a Goal 5 resource. Unlike the protections create for wetlands and other riparian resources, there were no specific environmental protections put in place for areas identified on the scenic working papers. As an outcome, we are left with a development project that can be approved without any specific tree preservation, exception for the protected stream and runs acro ss the property. Given these facts, we believe we lack the authority to require tree preservation on the majority of the property through this PUD process and at the time of building permit. Tree preservation and removal is