The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEW (3-31-17)4-APINN'.., VP - lanning March 31, 2017 Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 41h, Ste 201 Eugene OR, 97401 RE: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-3) Atrium Building 99 west 1011 Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5453 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning On March 3, 2017, you submitted a Planned Unt Development-Tentative application for Capital Hill PUD. The Planning Division assigned file number PDT 17-3 and I will serve as the lead City staff person reviewing the application. The first step in the application process is the "Completeness Review Step." For further information about this step, refer to the document enclosed titled, "Land Use Application - Completeness Review Step." Regarding your application, City staff reviewed the application and determined that it is incomplete. Enclosed are completeness review checklists and comments that identify the missing materials. Also enclosed is a document titled, "Incomplete Land Use Application -180 Day Completeness Review Process." To help ensure City staff know how to proceed with your application, please sign and return this form. If you have any questions, please contact me at (541) 682-5453 or via e-mail at: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us 11 1/ Sincerely, 14 w, Nicholas . Gioello Associate Planner Enclosures: Completeness Checklists, Fire Department Comments, Land Use Application, Incomplete Land Use Application, Attachment A. City of ELIgene • 99 W IOth Ave. . * Eug,e ne; OR 97401 ~ 541-687-5481 • 541-652-5572 Fax A.^, e - - Planning Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form - Planning Division Application File Name Capital Hill (PDT 17-1) Date: March 31, 2017 Applicant's Name: Cynthia and Tom Dreyer Zoning: R-1 Representative's Name: Carol Schirmer-Schirmer Satre Group Reviewed by: Nicholas Gioello Phone: (541) 682-5453 E-mail: Nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us General Staff notes that on the City application page, the box was checked for Planned Unit Development Approval Comments: Criteria - General (EC 9.8320). Also, the written narrative addresses the criteria of EC 9.8320, therefore the application will be assessed by staff under the General Criteria and not under Needed Housing. Since a significant amount of the site is to be preserved via individual lot owners as well as tract A by the neighborhood association, a copy of the draft CC&R's should be submitted in order to review preservation measures. Please review the attached checklist from Public Works and comments by Eugene/Springfield Fire Department. Written Statement Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 1. Detailed written statement that describes the proposed use of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ property and how the proposed planned unit development satisfies all applicable approval criteria (Section 9.8300 - 9.8310 and 9.8320 or 9.8325 of the Eugene Code). 2. Written statement includes the names, addresses, and telephone ® ❑ ❑ ❑ numbers of the design team members, and designation of the professional coordinator for the project. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Clearly states whether the application is to be reviewed under standard or Needed Housing criteria. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 4. Clearly states whether site is included on City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. (1) Please review the attached Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2295, which is the Purpose Statements and Recommendations for the South Hills Study. The Resolution has a statement in it that says "the policies adopted by this Resolution are applicable to the area identified in the study as being south of 18th Avenue, above an elevation of 500 feet". Accordingly, we treat the Purpose Statements and Recommendations as additional criteria for this type of application. Therefore, please revise page 23 of your narrative to address all the Policies and Recommendations of the South Hills Study. Beginning on page 36 regarding EC 9.6815 Street Connectivity, you discuss that "no right-of-way exists in Hendricks park, but Capital Drive creates a connection in that direction, should there be a need in the future". Is it possible to connect to other City streets through Hendricks Parks? This concept should be discussed with Comments appropriate Parks and Open Space staff, in order to investigate the opportunity for alternative access to the site either now or in the future. On page 45 (and page 54) of the narrative you indicate that lots 7, 15-20 and 23 are larger than the maximum 13,500 square feet. It would be helpful to provide the amount of square footage to be preserved for natural resource protection, and the remaining usable square feet of those lots. For example, lot 16 is 20,712 square feet but the preserved area totals 8,075 square, thereby reducing the usable area of the lot to 12,637 square feet. (4) Page 31 of the narrative states the project is not in the Goal 5 inventory, however, staff the site is listed as Goal 5. Please amend the narrative accordingly and address the Goal 5 criteria in EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2). Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Page 1 of 5 Required Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting per EC 9.7007 & 9.7010 Submitted Missing Incomplete ® ❑ ❑ S. Submitted the list of persons who were mailed notice pursuant to EC 9.7007(5) & a signed statement that notice was posted & mailed to those on the list. ® ❑ ❑ 6. Submitted a copy of the notice(see EC 9.7007(5)) ® ❑ ❑ 7. Submitted a copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(9); ® ❑ ❑ 8. Submitted copy of the site plan presented at the meeting. ® ❑ ❑ 9. Verify if site plan submitted with application substantially conforms to site plan presented at neighborhood/applicant meeting (see EC 9.7007(12)). If not, new meeting is required. Comments: Site Plan Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Date, north arrow, and standard engineer's scale are shown on the plat. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers are shown on the plat. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Vicinity map is shown on the plat. 13. Dimensions of the plan boundary, dimensions of proposed lots, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ approximate square footage calculations, and proposed parcel lines shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 14. Location of parcel lines and other layout details for future division of parcels greater than 13,500 square feet shown. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 15. Location of all existing and proposed structures shown. Indicated whether the existing structures will remain or be removed. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 16. Provided elevation drawings that portray the scale and appearance of proposed buildings. 17. Provided a tabulation of coverage, including the amount of area ® ❑ ❑ ❑ covered by building(s), parking, and the amount of area devoted to open space. 18. Indicated on the map and provided a supporting written statement ® ❑ ❑ ❑ addressing the solar criteria. (This applies only to land zoned R-1 and R- 2) 19. Provided a cover sheet with the certification and signatures of the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ professional coordinator and all design team members for the project. Each drawing is stamped and signed by the licensed professional responsible for preparing the plans. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Width and location of all existing and proposed public and private easements shown. 21. All contiguous property under the same ownership shown. The ® ❑ ❑ ❑ application includes all contiguous undeveloped or partially developed property under the same ownership. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. All proposed grading for streets, building areas, and other proposed development shown. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 23. Type and size of existing or proposed fencing and/or landscape buffering shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 24. If applicable, phasing boundaries shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 25. Included a phasing plan that indicates any proposed phasing for the development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. (15) Although is not possible at this time to know the exact individual homes that may be built on the lots, the limits of building impact on each lot should be shown with building envelopes. (16) Several elevation drawings showing the typical build out of the site would be helpful to provide a sense of Comments how the site will be viewed from beyond the property and how the preserved and proposed vegetation and site layout will limit the visibility of the site. Elevations will also provide evidence of the intent to meet the Purpose Statement and Recommendations of the South Hills Study, particularly the following: Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Page 2 of 5 ® That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to in-sure that development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills area. ® That all proposed road locations be reviewed to insure minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut- and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope, topographic or other conditions. Parking Area Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 26. Location, number, and dimensions of existing and proposed parking spaces, including aisle widths and disabled parking Divisionshown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 27. Location, number, and dimensions of bicycle parking spaces, including long-term and short-term bicycle parking shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 28. Traffic circulation patterns, including the width of travel lanes shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 29. Landscaping and screening for parking areas shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 30. Means of protection for landscaped areas (i.e. curbs) shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 31. Location and height of all existing and proposed lighting for parking area shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 32. Designated car pool and van pool parking for developments with 20 or more employees shown. Comments Street and Utility Improvement Requirements ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 33. Show that utility plans comply with Eugene Code Section 9.6775, Underground Utilities. Landscaping Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 34. Location, species, and size of existing and proposed landscaping shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 35. Indicates means of irrigation. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 36. Open space and landscaping proposed for open space areas shown. Tree Preservation Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 37. Provided a tree preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ approved equivalent. Included both a narrative description and a corresponding site plan to address tree preservation criterion. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 38. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zone or special area zone and other applicable approval criteria. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 39. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated trees subject to windthrow. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 40. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade expansive areas of pavement. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 41. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 42. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 43. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 44. Trees with significant habitat value. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 45. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 46. Trees along water features ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 47. Heritage trees. (37) The Tentative Tree Preservation Plan, sheet L3.0 is difficult to read in many places where tree numbers and Comments descriptions are overlapped and the font is too small. Please revise this plan to make it legible. (38) On the tree preservation plan please include an assessment of the condition and health of the trees on site. Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Page 3 of 5 Please also clarify why many lots show every tree to be removed on the lot (or within the usable area of the lot) while several lots do show some trees to remain. Was this based on a health assessment of the trees to be removed or saved? Some trees near property lines are shown to be removed, for example tree #2237 that straddles the property line of lots 15 and 16, or tree #1105 at the rear preservation line on lot 11. Please further explain why these trees are proposed for removal, or revise the plans to show they will be preserved. Additionally, page 34 of the narrative proposes a replacement plan of 1 tree for each tree removed. Please indicate when trees on the lots will be removed and when replaced. For example, will trees on the individual lots be removed during road and utility construction, and then replaced as individual houses are built, potentially years later? Please describe how the replacement plan will work and be enforced. Also, please indicate when trees in Tract A that are proposed for removal to accommodate the storm water system will be replaced. Na tural Features Assessment and Delineation of Applicable Boundaries on Site Plan Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 48. Significant on-site vegetation, including rare plants (those that are ® ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law), and native plant communities shown. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 49. All documented habitat for all rare animal species (those that are proposed for listing or are listed under State or Federal law) are shown. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 50. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and outcrops shown. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 51. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and riparian areas shown. 52. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan diagram as ❑ ❑ ❑ ® "Natural Resource" and areas identified in any city-adopted natural resource inventory shown. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 53. If disturbance to natural features, a mitigation plan was submitted, in accordance with 9.8320(4)(c). (53) Sheet L2.0 shows a proposed connection to the Ribbon Trail. Please show any proposed trails within Tracts Comments A and B or any proposed picnic areas or other common use amenities within the community areas of Tracts C and D? Architectural Features of Proposed Buildings Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 54. Indicated general building locations, bulk and height. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 55. Indicated key architectural features of proposed buildings (concept drawings okay). ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 56. Indicated how buildings proposed on slopes will blend with natural terrain if subject to the South Hills Study. (54 & 55) Please indicate building envelopes for the lots, and whether homes will be limited to 1 or 2 stories Comments through the CC&Rs. Supporting Documents Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 57. Submitted a legal description of the property included in the planned ® ❑ ❑ ❑ unit development application. This legal description is typed on an 8%" " white sheet of paper (no letterhead) so that it is suitable for x 11 recording ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 58. Submitted a preliminary title report. 59. If application requires notification to Oregon Division of State Lands concerning potential wetland permit requirements (on Eugene LWI or ❑ ❑ ❑ ® WEWP Inventory Maps), notification form and related map is prepared and attached (by staff). (ORS 215.418) *Planner: for necessary forms, Click here. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 60. Submitted a Geotechnical Analysis (60) As previously discussed the South Hills Study is applicable and has some specific language about what Comments should be looked at, both on-site and off-site, by "a qualified engineering geologist". Please refer to the attached Tentative Planned Unit Development Completeness Reviekv Form Page 4 of 5 Resolution No. 2295 and Exhibit A - Purpose Statements and Recommendations. The Purpose Statements and Recommendations are considered as additional criteria for this PUD application. The Geotechnical analysis should be revised so that it is clear that that the policies in the South Hills Study were addressed regarding soil depth and slope for all formations, basalt flows and Eugene Formation and what soil formations or categories listed in the policy might exist, and the adequate review of the off-site aspect (e.g. where any test pits or other evaluation was conducted off-site). For example, Figure-1 of the submitted Geotechnical/Geological Investigation calls out a reported slide on the west side of Capital Drive adjacent to Cresta De Ruta, which staff also observed during a recent site visit. This area is outside of the property boundary but would most likely be impacted during the proposed road improvements to Capital Drive. It appears the Geotechnical/Geological Investigation does not address this issue, nor does the written narrative address this. There may be other similar issues immediately adjacent to the subject site, and if so they will need to be addressed to be consistent with the South Hills Study. The written narrative should also address the highlights of the Geotechnical/Geological investigation. For Staff Use Only - Referral Information Yes No ® ❑ 1. Route land use referral to PW staff for Privately Engineering Public Improvement (PEPI). ® ❑ 2. Route land use referral to Public Works Maintenance. ❑ ® 3. Is the right-of-way county maintained? If yes, route land use referral to Lane County Transportation and Lane County Road Maintenance Planning. ❑ ® 4. Route to Bonneville Power Administration (if site includes a BPA easement) 5. Other: Tentative Pianned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Page 5 of 5 Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Public Works Department 0 Application File Name PDT 17-01/Capital Hill PUD Date: March 15, 2017 Reviewed by: Eric Favreau Phone: 541-682-2869 General Review of tentative PUD application for residential development Comments: Wastewater Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete NIA ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Show location of the existing public wastewater system and flow line elevation at proposed connection point(s). ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Show existing and proposed wastewater sewer layout, including service to each lot (each lot must be connected to a public wastewater sewer). Comments: 11 Street and Utility Improvement Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Note on the plan proposed public improvements and whether they are to be constructed publicly or privately. ® ❑ ❑ El 4. Note on the plat the location, size, and species of existing and proposed street trees. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Note on plat the location of any existing or proposed street lights. Comments: - Water Supply Requirements' Submitted MiLsin Incomplete NIA ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Include a diagram (including diameter) of existing and proposed water mains. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Show existing and proposed fire hydrants. Comments: Contour Intervals Submitted Missin Incom lete NIA ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Note on the plans the City Bench Mark used. ❑ One-foot contour intervals for ground slopes up to five percent. ® Two-foot contour intervals for ground slopes between five and ten percent. ❑ Five-foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding ten percent. Comments: _ Storm Drainage Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 9. Delineate the Special Flood Hazard Area. 10. Delineate the tops-of-banks of all open waterways on and adjacent to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ® property and describe extent of impacts and/or relocation work due to proposed development request. 11. Show existing and proposed flood control facilities, including collection, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ conveyance, and treatment of stormwater in compliance with SW ' Management Manual, within and adjacent to development site. ❑ ❑ ® 12. Show location of the existing piped public system and flow line elevation at ro posed connection point(s). 13. Application proposes no construction of public or private streets or shared ❑ ❑ ❑ ® driveways; provide a site development plan that delineates infiltration rates, bedrock, groundwater elevations, and ground slopes. Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Revised 6/2015 Pace 1 of 4 14. Application proposes construction of public streets; provide stormwater treatment plan for public streets based on infiltration, filtration, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ mechanical priority and include sizing calculations that demonstrate whether treatment of runoff from adjoining lots will be on-site or in public infiltration or filtration facility in the right of way. 15. Application proposes construction of private street(s) and/or shared driveway(s); provide stormwater treatment plan for private street(s) and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ shared driveway(s) based on infiltration and filtration priority and include sizing calculations that demonstrate whether treatment of runoff from adjoining lots will be on-site or in private shared facility. 16. Application (CUP/SR/PUD) includes impervious surface area to be ❑ ❑ ® ❑ constructed with a future development permit; provide stormwater treatment plan and analysis for runoff from impervious surface area based on infiltration, filtration or payment priority. 17. If applicable, identify flow control by demonstrating how there is no ® ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in flow rates or volumes if contributing to a Headwaters Area waterway, per EC 9.6793(3)(a). ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 18. Submit three copies of stormwater analysis that demonstrate compliance with stormwater drainage provisions at EC 9.6790 - 9.6795. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 19. If adjustment request includes Stormwater Quality/Flow Control, an approved alternative design was submitted. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 20. If adjustment request includes Source Control, a DAR form was submitted. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 21. The applicant has submitted approval from Lane County for proposed stormwater discharge to Lane County systems. Comments: 14, 15, 16 - Please addresses the hierarchy of infiltration vs filtration vs mechanical treatment. Applicant addresses reason for not using infiltration,-but not filtration. 18 - Only one copy submitted. Geotechnical Report' Requirements Submitted Missing/ Incomplete / / Inconsistent Unsupported N/A The applicant's analysis must address EC 9.6710 and AO 58-02-25-F. Complete Data Data 22. Level I Geotechnical Analysis has been submitted because the development includes public improvements and has site slopes between 5 and 10 percent. The report includes: required record ® ❑ ❑ ❑ data; a description of the development and property; a specific statement regarding the absence or presence of unstable soils; and concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development without further investigation or recommendations. Level 3 is required ifspecific recommendations are necessary. 23. Level 2 Geotechnical Analysis has been submitted because the development includes public improvements and has site slopes equal to or greater than 10%. The report includes: all of the Level ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 information above; test pit locations consistent with the interval requirements in Exhibit A of AO 58-02-25-F; and test pit results are profiled and show soil classifications and ground water elevation. Conclusion must also be per Level 1; if not, a Level 3 is required. 24. Level 3 Geotechnical Analysis has been submitted because either of the required Level 1 or Level 2 reports identified potential stability issues that necessitate design-specific geotechnical recommendations. The report includes: all of the requirements of Levels 1 and 2 above; design recommendations for structures, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® foundations, compacted fill, cut/fill lines, earthwork, and streets; mitigation measures for seismic hazards, landslides, and constraints that cannot be removed; construction measures for backfill, compaction, drainage, weather limitations, access across slope easements; inspection requirements during and following construction; and graphical representation of slope easements and design details for foundations and structures. Comments. Planned Unit Development ComDleteness Review Form Revised 6/2015 Paee 2 of 4 Hazardous Materials Review Yes No El ® 25. Is a Hazardous Materials Review application required? Comments: Street a nd Public Access Way Requirements Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 26. Identify the number of peak hour trips based on the likely development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division. If the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ development will generate 100 or more trips during any peak hour, a Traffic Impact Analysis Review is required in accordance with 9.8650 - 9.8680. El ❑ ® ❑ 27. Show street names for all existing and proposed streets (public and private) and identify the street classification. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 28. Indicate potential slope easements. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 29. Delineate any street segments where grade exceeds 15% percent, where drivewa s are prohibited. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 30. Provide a street center profile using ground elevations of proposed streets at or exceeding 15% grade. 31. Show location and widths (right-of-way and paving width) of all existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and proposed streets, intersections, and bike and pedestrian access ways, both within the plat and adjacent to the lat. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 32. Show existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks on site and adjacent to property involved. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 33. Address EC 9.6815 Street Connectivity and provide supporting narrative or if requesting an exception, provide justifications. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 34. Show that the proposal is consistent with Eugene Code Section 9.6780, Vision Clearance Area. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 35. Indicate radii of all street curves on the plans. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 36. Show location and type of existing and proposed transit-related facilities. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 37. Show existing and proposed special setbacks, in accordance with Eugene Code Section 9.6750. ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 38. Submit an Alternative Traffic Safety Study (ATSS) if an adjustment is request d to the required internal vehicle stacking at EC 9.6703(3)(a). 39. Show all existing access driveways to the property. When the property ® ❑ ❑ ❑ fronts a street under Lane County jurisdiction, show driveway locations for adjacent properties also. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 40. Demonstrate that access to the development site is located in accordance with EC 7.420. 41. Submit an ATSS if requesting more than one access connection for a ❑ ❑ ❑ ® single development site and/or requesting that an access connection be wider than 20 feet. ,,.,t;, nto al 42 include edestfi '+i EC l d ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . i p an p an aeeef anee 9-.67-3334. Comments: 27 - Show street name for proposed private street. 28 - Potential grading shown, but please identify as slope easement. 31 - Show right of way width of existing portion of Capital Drive to remain. 42 - Per planning review. Planned Unit Development Completeness Review Form Revised 6/2015 Paee 3 of 4 Eugene Office 1320 Willamette Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 682-5411 (541) 682-6882 FAX Fire Marshal's Office EUGENE SPRINGFIELD F. FIRE Springfield Office 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 726-3737 (541) 741-2214 FAX FIRE DEPARTMENT C.OMM ENTS FOR IEUG" ENE' OR SPRING IIELD PIANNING1 DEPARTMENTS Date: 3/27/17 Project: PDT17-1 Capital Hill PUD File Number: Address: Existing Use: Proposal: Planner: Nick Gioello Fire Department Comments/Conditions 1. Fire Department Access - 2014 Eugene Fire Code Reference 503.1 and more specifically 503.2.1 Fire Department Access Road Dimension a. Capital Hill PUD Developed Roads "Capital Drive" - reference from the SW corner of LOT#21 to the NW corner of L0T#1 (Plan Set Sheet Reference L6.0) i. Verify that this developed section of road meets the 20ft wide unobstructed road width referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.1 and Eugene Local Streets Standard. ii. Verify no parking (both sides of road) on this developed road as also referenced by (i) above fire code and City standards iii. Verify placement of "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs as referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code Appendix D103.6 and D103.6.1 Capital Hill PUD Developed Roads - "Street A Private Drive" i. Verify that this developed section of road meets the 20ft wide unobstructed road width referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.1 and Eugene Local Streets Standard. ii. Verify no parking (both sides of road) on this developed road as also referenced by (i) above fire code and City standards iii. Verify placement of "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs as referenced in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code Appendix D103.6 and D103.6.1 Silki NGfne LD A shared service of the cities of Eueene and Sorinefield. Oregon iv. Verify that a minimum turning /corner radius of 30 ft inside and 50 ft outside is achieved to accommodate fire department vehicles. a. (Plan Set Sheet Reference L6.0) i. At the SW intersection of Capital Drive and Street A Private Drive - between LOTS #21 and #22 ii. At the NW intersection of Capital Drive and Street A Private Drive - between LOTS #27 and #3 iii. Private Drive intersecting LOTS #11, #10, #9, #8 (coming off Street A Private Drive iv. At the N end of Capital Drive for the corner to the private drive intersecting LOTS #1, #4 V. Dead End Fire Department Access Roads Reference 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 - At the N end of Capital Drive and specifically the private drive intersecting LOTS #1, #4 a. A Dead End Fire Department Access Road exceeding 150ft situation exists starting from the SW corner of LOT#3 and terminating at LOT#4 b. The total length of this section is approximately 390ft c. 2014 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.5 requires an approved area for turning around fire apparatus where a Dead End Fire Department Access Road exists. d. The Fire Department proposes an "Acceptable Alternative To The 120ft Hammerhead" as shown in the 2014 Eugene Fire Code Appendix D "Figure D103.1" with the 70ft lane extending to the South between LOTS#1, #4 on the N Private Drive 2. Water Supply - OK - a. With the existing 2 fire hydrants and 2 new proposed hydrants and all new developed homes having automatic sprinkler systems complying with Chapter 9 "Fire Protection Systems" 2014 Eugene Fire Code and as specified in EC 9.6815 (d) of the march 3, 2017 Tentative PUD Application Capital Hill S~t2fNGIFYeID A shared service of the cities of Eueene and Sorinefield. Oreeon 3. Additional Fire and EMS Supportive Comments Purpose: To aid in the understanding of the real world challenges faced by emergency responders when responding to citizens and situations at, on, in and around geographical areas of the Capital Hill area of Eugene. These supporting comments apply directly to the Capital Hill PUD and recognize and respect the intent of The City of Eugene PUD Criteria section 9.8320 (6) which states, "The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response" Fire Department considerations always include both Fire and EMS emergencies. Concern Reality #1 • The inbound flow of fire department vehicles is Capital drive via Spring Blvd. from the north. This route has the fewest hairpin turns but also has very restricted access in several places along Spring Blvd. • With the minimal access along this route, Fire Department response can be very significantly delayed for any number of reasons: unusually high opposing traffic, a collision of vehicles, construction on the road, construction vehicles related to residential housing, down trees or wires, other drivers attempting ill-timed turn around attempts or trying to park. • In a large scale incident such as a wildland fire or even a house fire, local residents might be fleeing the area in their vehicles and impeding the flow of fire vehicles. • With any of the above situations the alternate route might require the fire vehicle backing up a long distance (greater than 150 ft) before finding an available turn around point such as at East 27th and Spring Blvd. The alternative, if Spring is inaccessible, is Spring to Madrona Dr, to Highland to Cresta de Ruta. At the intersection of Cresta de Ruta and the portion of Capital Blvd which would access the new subdivision, is a very sharp left had turn that would require additional maneuvering of the fire vehicle and would potentially greatly reduce response time. Minimizing restrictions along existing Fire Department Access Roads leading up to the Capital Drive area would greatly improve the ability of the fire department and other emergency responders to respond in the least amount of time as possible. a~aPS21 Z-Am A A shared service of the cities of Eueene and Sorinefield. Oreeon One recognized improvement could be to place "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs on both sides of existing roads that lead up to the Capital Hill area (Continued) Concern Reality #2 • The impact upon the timely response of additional fire response vehicles on major medical emergencies and fire incidents. • For structure fires, NFPA 1710 calls for a minimum firefighting force of 4 to arrive within 5 minutes, 90% of the time. This means we need two fire engines on scene in that time allowance. • Additionally, OR-OSHA requires a minimum of one 2 person entry team and one 2 person rescue team to be assembled before entry into an IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) atmosphere except for situations where a known victim is inside the structure and rescue needs to be performed to save a life. • NFPA 1710 further advises to have a "full alarm assignment of 14 or 15 on scene within 9 minutes, 90% of the time. Our first alarm assignment for a residential structure fire includes 4 engine company(12 persons total), 1 truck company(3 persons total), 1 medic unit(2 persons total) and 2 chief officers(2 total). • Given the severely restricted access to the area, in all likelihood the truck company would not be able to physically drive to the scene. This means the Incident Commander would need to determine whether to have the crew from the truck park at the most out of the way place and walk in on foot or send the truck away and call for another engine company. Either way the truck company crew of 3 would be out of the fire fight. Fire Department Comments Submitted By Deputy fire Marshal Mark Dahl SPd~NGFiELO A shared service of the cities of Eueene and SDrlniffleld. Oregon RESOLUTION N0. 2295 RECITALS: On June 26, 1972 the Common Council of the City of Eugene adopted Resolution No_ 2070 designating the south hills area of the city as an area of special study. In July, 1972 the Mayor appointed the Joint Parks Committee to develop the study of the south hills area. The Joint Parks Committee submitted the preliminary draft of the South Hills Study to the City Council an January 2, 1974, in ac- cordance with the time period specified in Resolution No. 2070. The Joint Parks Committee conducted two public hearings on the preliminary draft of the South Hills Study during January, 1974, and prepared a final report incorporating modifications to the original recommendations based upon public testimony presented. That report was submitted to the Eugene Planning Commission on March 14, 1974, The Eugene Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the preliminary draft of the South Hills Study in February, 1974, and a second public hearing on the final report of the Joint Parks Committee in April, 1974. Fellawing the second public hearing, The Eugene Planning Commission formally recommended adoption of the South Hills Study as modified by the final report of the Joint Parks Committee. The Common Council of the City of Eugene has conducted a public Hearing on the South Hills Study as recommended for adapcian by the Eugene Planning Commission and has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Joint Parks Committee and the testi- mony presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CaVACIu COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON, as follows: That the Purpose Statements and Recommendations set forth in Exhibit A are adopted as policy statements and as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990 General Plan for the south hills area and are to be used in making land-use and other decisions in that area. That the supporting text, maps and diagrams set forth in the pre- liminary draft of the South Hills Study (attached as Exhibit B) and the Official Report of the Eugene Planning Commission (attached as Exhibit C) are adopted as findings. That the policies adopted Iry this Resolution are applicable to that area identified in the study as being south of 186 Avenue, above an elevation of Silo feet. Page 1. Resolution That the Joint Pucks Committee be directed to begin immediately an analysis of the costs involved in acquisition of property in the south hills area and a study of the methods and sources of funding available. That the staff be directed to develop any ordinances necessary to implement the recommendations of the South Hills Study for further consideration by the Planning Commission and Common Council. That the provisions of Resolution No. 2070 and Resolution No. 2248 pertaining to density limitations and requirement of planned unit development procedures are superseded by the provisions of this Resolution. That this Resolution shall become effective immediately. The foregoing Resolution adopted this 10th day of June 1974. (s/S.P. Flogstad City Recorder Page 2. Resolution Exhibit A SGUTI1 1i1LLS STUDY Purpose statements and Recommendations RIDGELINE PARIS Purpose The south hills constitute a unique and irreplaceable community asset. The strong dominant landforms and wooded character present there com- bine to provide distinct areas of contrast in terms of texture and color from the normal pattern of urban development. By virtue of this contrast, the south hills function as a strong visual boundary or edge for the city. The ridgeline of the south hills also ;narks the most southerly extension of the urban service area. Further, there are areas within the south hills that are especially suitable for park sites for recreational use by present and anticipated popu- lation. In view of these factors, any areas recommended for preser- vation or park usage should serve at least one of the following pur- poses. I- To insure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community; 2. To protect areas of high biological value in order to provide for the continued health of native wildlife and vegetation; 3. To insure provision of recreational areas in close proximity to major concentrations of population; 4. To provide connective trails between major recreational areas; 5. To provide connective passageways for wildlife between important biological preserves; 6, To contribute to Eugene's evergreen forest edge; and 7. To provide an open space area as a buffer between the inten- sive level of urban development occurring within the urban service area and the rural level of development occurring outside the urban service area. It is the legislative intent of the City Council that the recommendations of the Ridgeline Park Section of the South ]sills Study be achieved through clearly constitutional means. Soecific recommendations That all vacant property above an elevation of 901' be preserved from an intensive level of development, subject to the following exceptions: 1. Development of individual residences on existing lots; and 2. Development under planned unit development procedures when it can be demonstrated that a proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this section- Exhibit A South Hills Study Puzpose Statements and Recommendations Page 2 That the area specified for preservation be protected through a variety of techniques including but not limited to acquisition, scenic ease- ments, density transfers, and dedication. That the Joint Parks Committee be instructed to prepare refined cost estimates and an analysis of funding sources for submission to the City Council. That the City pursue acquisition of major active-use park facilities to serve existing and potential population in the following areas: 1. Adjacent to the EWE3 reservoir off }forth Shasta Loop; 2_ Property south of the present Amazon linkage system, south of Center Way and east of the Fox Hollow elementary school; 3. Property adjacent to the Crest Drive elementary school; and d. Property adjacent to the EWER reservoir located south of 25th Avenue and west of Ha4ins Heights. That the city insure the potential for further active-use parks to serve anticipated population in the areas south of Warren Avenue, east of the present Spencer Butte Park and adjacent to Blanton Heights Road. That all proposed developments in tAe south hills area be reviewed to determine if connecting linkages are possible between various park sites, particularly north of Skyline Park to Hendricks Park and between 91anton Heights and Hawkins Heights. That the city should adopt an ordinance concerning the removal of vege- tation. DENSITY Purpose The density recommendations contained in the South Hills Study are intended to serve the following purposes: 1. ro remain within the broad guidelines of the 199J) General Plan of: a. Insuring utilization of vacant property already served with public facilities; and b. More precisely defining the broad density range set forth in that Plan. 2. To insure adequate provision for development to accommodate anticipated growth; and 3. To achieve a balance between the level of development and the provision of public services. Erhib.it A South Hills Study Purpose Statements and Recommendations Page 3 Specific Recommendations That in the area west of Friendly Street the maximum icvel of new development per gross acre be lunited to 8 units per acre (the maximum figure of 8 units per gross acre being subject to positive findings under the planned unit development criteria). That in the area east of Friendly Street the maximum level of new development per gross acre be limited to 5 units per acre (the maximum figure of 5 dwelling units per gross acre being subject to positive findings under the pLanned unit development criteria). That low-moderate income housing developed under the Controlled Income and Rent provisions of the City Code be exempt from the density standards set forth above, but subject to normal specific site analysis standards. That if a significant volume of low-moderate income housing should develop, the effect on total density should be evaluated and allowable densities of future developments adjusted. URBAN SERVICE AREA DEFINITION Purpose It is the purpose of the recommendations concerning the urban service area to; 1. Provide a more precise definition of the urban service area con- cept as set forth in the 1990 General Plan for the south hills area of the city; 2. Provide more adequate criteria for the evaluation of annexation requests; 3. Insure that annexation serves a public purpose as well as a pri- vate purpose; and d. Insure preservation of the primary residential character of the south hills. Specific Recommendations That the ridgeline identified in the South Hills Study defines the po- tential extension of tlts urban service area. That future annexation requests within the potential urban service area be evaluated upon the following bases: 1. The ability of the community to provide public services for the potential development in an economic and efficient manner (and other factors normally considered in evaluation of annexa- tions); and Fxhibit A South ]sills Study Purpose Statements and Recommendations Page 4 2. The previous maintenance of the property as a desirable resi- dential environment (Note: if the city adopts an ordinance governing vegetation removal, the standards set forth in that ordinance could provide the basis for evaluating previous maintenance of the property). That property which can only be provided sewer service by contouring not be included in the definition of the potential urban service area. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Purpose The development standards recommended as part of the South Hills Study are intended to achieve the following purposes: 1. To insure the resnonsivi:ness of specific developments to the aggregate of known natural facto--s; 2. To insure maximum preservation of the natural character of the south hills; and 3. To insure adequate review of the public consequences of develop- ment in the south hills- Specific Recommendations That all major developments (developments in excess of minor partitions) occurring on property above an elevation of 701' shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine if standard subdivision procedures, site review procedures, or planned :unit development procedures should be required. In reaching a determination, the Planning Director shall evaluate the following factors, (a) the potential for surface move- ment; (b) the view potential of the property; (c) the nature of existing vegetation; (d) the nature of surrounding development; and (e) the nature of the development proposal. The decision of the Plan- ning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and thence to the City Council. That planned unit development procedures be required for development of any parcel over d acres in size, characterized by a slope in excess of 20% in the area between 500' and 701' in elevation. That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the fol- lowing purposes; 1. To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: a. Shallowest slopes; b. Lowest elevations; c. Least amount of vegetation; d. Least amount of visual impact. F-shiblt A South Hills study Purpose Statements and Recommendations Page S 2. To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by a. Intermediate and steep slopes; b. Higher elevations; c. Significant amounts of vegetation; d- Significant visual impact. That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any develop- ment by a qualified engineering geologist occc-ar under any of the following conditions: 1. All formations Soil depth of 40 inches and above Slopes of 30 percent and above 2. Basalt flows Soil depth of 40 inches and above Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent 3. Eugene Formation Soil depth of 40 inches and above Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent 4. Basalt flows Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches Slopes of 30 percent and above S. Eugene Formation Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches Slopes of 30 percent and. above That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space ele- ments of different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open space. That developments be reviewed iu terms of scale, bulk and height to in- sure that development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills area. That all proposed road locations be reviewed to insure minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope, topographic or other conditions. That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in ally determinations. Fxhiblt A South Hills Study Purpose Statements and Recommendations Page b That all developments shall be reviewed for potential linkage with or to the ridgeline park system. That all developments (planned unit developments or subdivisions) be reviewed to insure maximum preservation of existing vegetation.