LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.954.1260 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br /> <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br /> <br /> <br />September 17, 2024 <br /> <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o City Permit and Information Center <br />99 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br /> <br />Re: Braewood Hills 3rd Add PUD (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) <br />Applicant’s Appeal to the Planning Commission <br />Attn: Nick Gioello, Assoc Planner <br /> <br />Dear Nick: <br /> <br />This is the applicant’s appeal to the Planning Commission of the Hearing Official’s (“HO”) <br />September 5, 2024, decision denying the applications above. It is accompanied by the appeal <br />form and filing fee check. All arguments herein are limited to the record. <br /> <br />With this filing the Applicant is also filing a contingent request to reopen the record and amend <br />the application as may be necessary to get an approval. That right is created by ORS 197.522 for <br />applications for “needed housing,” which this application is. The statute allows for more time <br />and additional evidence. The applicant has not requested an ORS 197.522 proceeding yet, <br />although it advised the HO it intended to do so if that is what it takes to get an approval. The <br />applicant believes, however, that based on the issues and arguments below the Commission <br />should be able to resolve this application in the traditional manner by correcting the decision of <br />the HO. If that is not possible, then the applicant will proceed with a 197.522 proceeding. <br /> <br />Enclosed with this letter, for reference and orientation by the Commission, is the Site Plan <br />reviewed in the Staff Report for the hearing. Also enclosed is the applicant’s August 14 Second <br />Open Record letter, as that filing is the basis for several errors alleged here. Discussion point 1 <br />therein is also the applicant’s fullest explanation why the 901-foot development prohibition in <br />the /PD overlay zone runs afoul of the state Middle Housing Statute. <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY <br /> <br />The 10 issues raised below have been numbered for reference. <br /> <br />Admittedly, getting through this appeal will be an atypical, heavy load for the Commission. <br />This matter became more complex than usual, in the applicant’s view, due to: 1) the HO <br />mistakenly disregarding valid rebuttal evidence; 2) confusion about what constitutes the footprint <br />of the Goal 5 Scenic Sites inventory; 3) Public Works waiting until after the public hearing to <br />change its position and require a road stub to be “public;” and 4) the intersection of the Middle <br />Housing Statute with the /PD overlay zone’s prohibition of any development over 901 feet. <br />