HomeMy WebLinkAbout1st Open Record Period: Staff Memos with attachments
Memorandum
Date: March 21, 2018
To: Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Eugene Hearings Official
From: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division
Subject: Open Record Memo for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
___________________________________________________________________________________
In accordance with the open record period established following the public hearing held on March 7,
2018, staff provides the following information in response to a request by Bill Kloos, Attorney for the
applicant. At the hearing, he requested clarification from staff on how the proposal can be
developed with two additional units under Needed Housing code provisions as referenced in the
initial Staff Report (see page 5). He also requested confirmation that the PUD site is identified as a
Goal 5 area and depicted on the Scenic Areas map (Figure H 2).
provided below.
March 3, 2017), a letter was submitted by the
In this letter it is asserted that:
objective.
Under the Needed Housing track, the code prohibits any grading on slopes of 20% or steeper.
Under the Needed Housing track, the code limits development above the 900-foot elevation
to just one dwelling unit on any legal lot that existed on August 1, 2001, per EC 9.8325(12)(a).
The area above the 900-foot contour may not be subdivided for housing.
He also states the following:
The applicant requests a determination from the Hearing Official that, by direct operation of
the statute, the City is prohibited from applying any standards that are not clear and
objective. This statutory prohibition applies to the full range of standards listed under the
General standards track in EC 9.8320.
ressed it in the initial February 2018 Staff Report as
follows:
Staff has therefore evaluated the proposal under the general (i.e. discretionary) approval
approval under the general approval criteria, rather than the needed housing approval
criteria.
Staff agrees with the assertion that the PUD cannot be developed as proposed under the
Needed Housing approval criteria. However, staff disagrees with statements made by the
cannot be developed at all if the
Needed Housing approval criteria are applied. Based on a review of the site plan submitted
by the applicant, staff believe that at least two additional units could be developed on the site
if the applicant chose to proceed under the needed housing approval criteria.
In addition, staff notes that ORS 197.307 requires the City to adopt clear and objective
approval criteria for needed housing. ORS 197.307 does not entitle every developer to a set
of clear and objective approval criteria that guarantee approval of every proposed needed
housing development. The City has adopted clear and objective approval criteria for PUDs as
required by ORS 197.307. When applied to this particular proposed development, those clear
and objective approval criteria would appear to prevent the developer from building his
preferred development. In this situation, the developer has two choices: the developer can
either rework the proposed development so it complies with the clear and objective approval
criteria; or the developer can choose to proceed (as the developer has done in this case)
under the discretionary General PUD approval criteria.
On March 5, 2018 staff received additional materials from Bill Kloos, again asserting:
This application is entitled to the protection of the Needed Housing Statute.
The City may only apply discretionary standards if the applicant has the right to proceed under
clear and objective standards. ORS 197.307(6).
The application demonstrates that the
Needed Housing standards in EC 9.8325.
standards in this review are contrary to the law.
that no units could be built under the Needed Housing track of the Eugene Code because of the
existing site constraints (i.e. 20% slopes, 900 foot elevation, etc.). He asked several times if staff
could demonstrate how two additional units could be built on the site as stated in the staff report.
Staff Response to
In review of the various materials presented by the applicant, particularly including the site map
provided to show existing site constraints and the layout of existing legal lots (see Attachment A for
ease of reference), it appears that, in addition to the four existing dwellings on the site, the southern
area of the subject site could be partitioned into two or three additional parcels. This area includes an
undeveloped legal lot that is below 900 feet in elevation with over 100 feet of public street frontage
on Capital Drive. Based on the PUD applicability trigger at EC 9.8305(1)(b), partitions of property
2
above 701 feet (and below 900) that do not include creation of a public street do not require a PUD.
It is therefore apparent, based on the map provided by the applicant, that the property could be
partitioned to create two to three additional parcels without requiring PUD approval. Staff notes that
the assumption that a street would not be required for a partition is reasonable considering the
exceptions to street connectivity otherwise recommended for the Capital Hill PUD in this area.
applicant materials to demonstrate compliance are before the City), the applicant may apply for a
partition of the existing legal lot into two or three parcels that would meet the applicable lot
standards at EC 9.2760 and EC 9.2775 (for flag lots). Such an application could be made under the
using track for Tentative Partition approval at EC 9.8220. For example, it appears
possible that one regular single-family lot (a front lot) and two flag lots (to the rear of the front lot)
could be proposed in this area under the clear and objective criteria of the Needed Housing track at
EC 9.8220. Of particular note and emphasis, such an application would not be subject to any
limitation on grading of 20% slopes or greater.
Staff Response to Question Regarding Goal 5 Scenic Areas Map:
As stated in the February 28, 2018 staff report (page 20):
inventory, per the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, which designates the subject site
as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. As such, the
provisions of EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2) are applicable to the proposed tentative PUD.
Staff has provided below a copy of Figure H 2 of the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, for
clarification and the full copy is provided along with the adopting ordinance as Attachment B:
3
The following is an expanded inset area and expanded legend. Although it is difficult to determine
precisely, given the small scale and legibility of the map legend, it appears that the PUD site is
identified as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and possibly identified as Prominent and Plentiful
Vegetation:
A similar issue during the Tentative Planned Unit Development for Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) was
addressed by the Hearings Official regarding the legibility of Figure H 2 in determining whether a
property is within the Goal 5 mapped resource area. The Hearings Official decision is included as
Attachment C; see pages 26 through 27 of the decision for related information. In this case, staff used
4
a similar methodology to more precisely determine the location of the subject property on Figure H 2
by using physical referents such as the clear location of Hendricks Park immediately north of the
subject property and the relative locations of streets identified on the map.
Attachments:
Attachment A Site Plan W/Contours
Attachment B Ordinance 20351 & Figure H 2
Attachment C Hearings Official Decision for Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1)
5
Eugene, OR
Description L1.0
Tentative PUD
Capital Hill
Phase
CAPITAL HILL PUD
October 25, 2016
Date
Date
ces
Revisions
www.schirmersatre.com
Checked
Fax: 541.686.4577 Phone: 541.686.4540
#ces
SITE PLAN W/ CONTOURS
375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene OR 97401
Drawn By
.
Project Number
HENDRICKS(80.32 ACRES)
PARK
LEGEND
T
E
E
R
T
S
A
T
U
R
E
D
A
T
S
E
R
C
RIBBON TRAIL
E
V
I
T
E
R
E
R
D T
S
L
L
A
C
A
O
L
T
I
P
A
C
Attachment B
AttachmentC
1
(
Attachment B
Attachment B