Appeal Materials 2024-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official August 14, 2024 Page 2 4. Whether this site is an area “included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory” in the meaning of EC 9.8325(3) and is, therefore, exempt from the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards in EC9.6885? The answer is YES. It is on the Water Resources Goal 5 inventory (acknowledged 2005) and also on the Scenic Sites Goal 5 inventory (acknowledged 1982) as shown by Staff. Its status on either inventory is sufficient to exempt the site. 5. How to resolve the Lot 38 lack of access? The City correctly points out that Lot 38 on the current site plan shows no access. This oversight resulted from the applicant’s efforts to minimize wetland impacts. The solution, offered here, is to combine Lot 38 with Lot 37 and make the showing the combined lot size it justified under standards in the code. 6. How to deal with stormwater detention capacity for possible Middle Housing development? The new proposal is for detention facilities on individual lots. The major substantive bone of contention is the impact of the 901’ elevation development prohibition in EC 9.8325(8)(a), as was the case in Round I in 2019. The new player on the field since the Round I decision is the Middle Housing Statute, as discussed in section 1 below. Generally, the applicant believes that the Middle Housing Statute, applied directly, prohibits the City from applying that standard in a way that interferes with guaranteed Middle Housing rights. The City has yet to address the impact of the Middle Housing Statute on that standard, which the City wants to apply. In addition, putting aside the issue of whether the Middle Housing Statute negates the 901’ standard, EC 9.8335(8)(a) is not clear and objective on its face. It is ambiguous because it is subject to multiple plausible interpretations. The standard is: “No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 901 feet except that either middle housing or one single-unit dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001.” There are ambiguities: • Development is defined to include “land division.” The applicant is proposing to divide the area off from the balance at the 900’ elevation so as not to place any division line at or above the 901’ elevation. Does that satisfy the standard? Or does “development of 901’” land include any partitioning of land that separates the 901’ land from land at lower elevations, which is what is proposed here? • Does the prohibition of development relate to the current development proposal and any future development proposal as the Planning Director asserts with the Director proposed conditioning? Or does the prohibition of development not include future development proposals, as the Public Works Director maintains in the July 31 comments, which suggest that Randy Lane may connect through the 901’+ elevation land in the future, and, therefore, Randy Lane should be extended now public road standards? Only one of those two conflicting staff positions can be correct, and choosing between them means the standard should not be applied at all.