Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Harris Hall Phone: 541-682-5377 Lane County Public Service Building https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official 125 E. 8th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available, or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division: (541)682-5481. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2019 – 5:30 p.m. I. Public Hearing: Appeal of Planning Director Decision for University Heights (also known as Capital Hill PUD) (PDF 18-2/ST 18-9) Request: Appeal of a Final Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision to create a 34-lot residential development Owner/Applicant: Cynthia & Thomas Dreyer Representatives: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 18-03-04-31 / 00100, 00200, 00201, 00300, 00400 Address or Location: Capital Drive Lead City Staff: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5453, NGioello@eugene-or.gov Public Hearing Format 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the proposal. 4. Public testimony from those in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official.  Atrium Building 99 west 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Memorandum Date: October 30, 2019 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Appeal of University Heights (aka Capital Hill PUD) Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision Approval (City Files PDF 18-2 & ST 18-9) ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED: To hold a public hearing on November 6, 2019 and take final local action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s decision approving a Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision for University Heights (aka Capital Hill PUD) (City Files PDF 18-2 & ST 18-9). BACKGROUND: On September 27, 2019, the Planning Director approved Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision applications for University Heights that are the subject of this appeal. The subject site is located at the end of Capital Drive, adjacent to Hendricks Park and zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential with a portion of the site also have /PD Planned Development overlay zoning. The applicant seeks necessary approvals to carry out the tentative approval for Capital Hill PUD (City File PDT 17-1), involving a 34-lot residential subdivision. On October 14, 2019, an appeal of the Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision approvals was filed by Tom Bruno on behalf of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens neighborhood association. The appeal asserts that the Planning Director made four assignments of error related to the Final PUD approval and seven assignments of error related to the Tentative Subdivision approval. A vicinity map and reduced site plan are included as Attachments A and B. The original written appeal application and written statement is included as Attachment C, the signed application signature page is included as Attachment D, the revised written appeal statement is included as Attachment E, and the Planning Director’s decision granting Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision approval is included as Attachment F. Public notice of the November 6, 2019 appeal hearing was mailed on October 17, 2019. Since the notice was sent, written public testimony was submitted and is included as Attachment G. 1 If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this staff report it will be forwarded to the Hearings Official and added to the record. Further background information on this appeal, including the applicant’s Final PUD and Tentative Subdivision applications, is included in the full record of materials provided separately. APPEAL PROCEDURES The appeal hearing will follow quasi-judicial procedures as required by EC 9.7625 and EC 9.7065-9.7095. The decision on these appeals will be based on whether the Planning Director properly evaluated the request and made a decision consistent with applicable approval criteria for the Tentative Subdivision application at EC 9.8515 and Final Planned Unit Development at EC 9.8365. The decision on these appeals will be made within 15 days from the close of the public record, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Hearings Official may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director. Once made, the decision of the Hearings Official will be final at the local level. The final local decision on these appeals is required by December 19, 2019 to meet the statutory 120-day deadline. Appeals of Planning Director Decisions are subject to the provisions at EC 9.7600 through 9.7635, except that in this case, the appeals are not subject to the limitations set forth in EC 9.7605(3). Because the Tentative Subdivision and Final Planned Unit Development are both a “permit” as defined by ORS 227.160(2), in accordance with ORS 227.175(10), the appeal hearing shall be de novo (new evidence and information may be submitted) and the presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence is not limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: The appeal statement raises four assignments of error related to the Final PUD approval and seven assignments of error related to the Tentative Subdivision approval. To assist the Hearings Official in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. Excerpts from the appeal statement are provided below, followed by staff comments. Staff notes that the appellant initially submitted one paper copy of the application and appeal statement. Portions of that original appeal statement have sentences that are illegible due to what appears to be low quality printing or photo-copying. Staff received a revised version of the appeal statement on October 19, 2019 and have relied on that version for the following evaluation of the appeal. The eleven assignments of error (the “appeal issues”) are stated below in bold italics, followed by staff comments. Section 1 – Final PUD Appeal (PDF 18-2) Assignment of Error #1: In her 9/6/19 letter to the Planning Division, Carol Schirmer indicates that “No additional trees will be removed as a result of this additional level spreader [the third level spreader added with this application between Lots 10 and 11]. 2 Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant does not make a direct assertion here that the Director erred in approving the Final PUD nor indicates what code criteria relates to this appeal issue. The appellant asserts that a review of plan sheet L3.4 (dated November 16, 2019) shows at least 7 trees that are either endangered or will need to be removed for the installation of the stormwater line between Lots 10 and 11 for a new level spreader. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, at EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control, the issue of the new level spreader is discussed as follows (page 30): “Staff notes that the addition of a third level spreader is still in substantial conformance with the approved tentative PUD (PDT 17-01). The proposed addition of a third level spreader will not result in an increase in peak flow rate. Runoff generated from the private street will continue to be treated for water quality and mimic existing conditions on site.” “Staff confirms that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual compliance with this standard and EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2), subject to a more detailed review for compliance with applicable standards during subsequent permit reviews.” The director determined the proposed development complies with the standards at EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control. Staff Comments and Recommendation: The alleged assignment of error is based on the information that a new level spreader was included in the Final PUD application. The assignment of error seems to be that the appellant disagrees with the applicant’s statement that, “no additional trees will be removed as a result of this additional level spreader”. The area in question is located between Lots 10 and 11. In the approved Tentative PUD, only two level spreaders were proposed on the site, located within Tract A between Lots 13 and 14. With the Final PUD application, the applicant proposed an additional level spreader between Lots 10 and 11. The stormwater line would collect water from a manhole in Cupola Drive and traverse downhill eastward through Lot 11 along its border with Lot 10 and terminate into a level spreader within Tract A as shown below (site plan excerpt starting on the following page): 3 The appellant asserts that 7 trees are either endangered or need to be removed but provides no additional information or expert testimony that supports this claim, nor any indication of which trees are endangered. With the Tentative PUD (PDT 17-1) approval, the site plans show trees within the buildable areas of lots as “discretionary” trees, which have the option of being removed for construction. The private conservation areas of lots and Tract A have conditions of approval that provide restrictions for their removal, including trees near the buildable areas of lots. The Director did not otherwise err in determining that the proposed detention system demonstrated conceptual compliance with EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2), subject to a more detailed review for compliance with applicable standards during subsequent permit reviews. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Assignment of Error #2: The Planning Director confirms on page 8 of the decision that sheet L 3.0 contains a required note about replacing each tree removed for the installation for the stormwater line between Lots 13 and 14 with two trees. 4 Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts that this note on the final plans should be revised to include any trees removed or damaged for installation of the stormwater line between Lots 10 and 11 for the new third level spreader. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, Section 1 - Evaluation of Final PUD, at EC 9.8365 the Director found that the condition of approval to amend Note #13 on the final plans with revised language was met. This note requires replacement trees for any trees removed as a result of the installation of the stormwater line associated with the level spreaders between Lots 13 and 14. Staff Comments and Recommendation: The Hearings Official granted tentative approval for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) with the following condition of approval: 6. On the final plans, replace “Notes” #13 on sheet L3.0 with the following: Any trees to be removed in Tract A, as a result of installation of the storm sewer system between and near Lots 13 and 14, shall be replaced with two trees for every tree removed, after the City’s acceptance of the system. Replacement trees shall be a native species, with a minimum caliper of 1 ½ inches for deciduous trees and a minimum height of 5 feet for coniferous trees, and planted in the same general area. In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, the Director found the applicant included this note on the final plans, therefore the condition was met. The appellant appears to be asserting that the requirements of condition #6 should be extended to address potential tree removal related to the additional level spreader between Lots 10 and 11 but does not articulate any basis under the approval criteria to require it. Without more information in the appeal, staff is unable to suggest whether or how it this could be accomplished. Staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision based on the limited information in the appeal. If the appellant is able to better articulate the basis for the appeal under the approval criteria, presumably based on conformance with the approved Tentative PUD rather than consistency with the related approval condition itself, and if the applicant is agreeable to a revised or added condition to require additional replacement trees due to the level spreader not included in the Tentative PUD approval, it may be possible to modify the decision on appeal to do so. Similarly, the applicant could be required to provide additional analysis to better ascertain the extent of possible impacts to any trees designated for preservation, as it relates to the appeal argument under Assignment of Error #1. Assignment of Error #3: The Planning Director confirms on page 9 of the Decision that Note #3 on Sheet L 2.0 should contain an exact version of the Eugene Planning Commission’s (“EPC”) 8/13/19 Condition of Approval #8 as Note #3 regarding the prohibition of construction activity in the preservation areas. An exception is then made for installation of the stormwater lines between Lots 13 and 14. 5 Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant again asserts that because the final plans now include a third level spreader in a different location within Tract A, this condition of approval should be revised to include the area between Lots 10 and 11. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, the Director found the applicant had not provided on sheet L2.0 language identical to the required condition of approval of the Tentative PUD. The following condition of approval was included as a requirement of the Final PUD: • Prior to execution of the required PUD performance agreement, Sheet L2.0 of the final PUD site plan set shall be revised, replacing Note 3 with the following language: Within the individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19, and on Tracts A, B, C, and D, no above ground structure or fence shall be constructed; no impacts to preserved trees; and no grading activity shall be allowed. The only exceptions are: within Tract A, where the storm drainage facility and associated grading and maintenance, as shown on the site plans, is allowed; and the applicant’s proposed 6- foot tall agricultural pass-through fence shall be allowed along the entire southern, eastern and northern boundaries of the preservation area on the subject property. The placement of the agricultural fence shall occur under the direction of a certified arborist, consistent with and documented by, a report from the arborist demonstrating that no preservation trees will be negatively impacted. The Director found that to ensure compliance, this condition of approval is required for the final plan set to be submitted with the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. Staff Comments and Recommendation: While it is true that the Director’s decision required the applicant address some modified wording that appeared to be in error on the applicant’s Final PUD plans as compared to the original approval condition, staff does not see how it specifically relates to the appellant’s suggestion to extend the requirements of condition #8 to the new level spreader between Lots 10 and 11 without more information. As with Assignment of Error #2 above, if the appellant can better articulate its argument related to the approval criteria, and if the applicant is agreeable, it may also be possible for the requirements of condition #8 to be extended to the additional level spreader between Lots 10 and 11. Assignment of Error #4: The Planning Director at the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 of the Decision confirms that Condition of Approval #10 from the Eugene Planning Commission’s August 13, 2019 Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission on Remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. The Planning Director states: “To ensure compliance at the time of development, this condition of approval will be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval.” 6 Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant is challenging this condition of approval regarding compliance with geotechnical reports in a pending appeal to LUBA. The appellant asserts that “it should not be included here until that appeal is resolved”. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, condition of approval #10 was modified by the Planning Commission’s Final Order on Remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (dated August 13, 2019), and will be satisfied at the time of subsequent PEPI, building and site development permits as specified. To ensure compliance at the time of development, this condition of approval will be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Based on the Planning Commission’s Final Order on Remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (dated August 13, 2019), the final local approval of the Tentative PUD remains in effect at this time. The applicant is entitled to rely on a final City decision (even a decision on appeal) until a higher authority remands or reverses that decision. Since a decision by LUBA on the appeal referenced by the appellant is not expected until mid-December, the Planning Commission’s final local approval remains in effect and the Director’s decision confirming condition of approval #10 is appropriate to include in the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. Staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. Section 2 – Tentative Subdivision Appeal (ST 18-9) Assignment of Error #1: The Planning Director in the middle of page 19 of the Decision imposes a new condition of approval (designated as Condition #11 on page 35 of the Decision) that requires the applicant to create a private wastewater easement across the north lines on Lots 17 and 18 for the benefit of Lots 18 and 19. Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts that with this new condition of approval requiring a private wastewater easement for Lots 18 and 19, the Planning Director undermines the Planning Division’s position that no private wastewater easement is currently required for installation/maintenance of the stormwater lines along the boundary of Lots 10 and 11. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, a condition of approval was included that would require the creation of a private wastewater easement across the north property lines of Lots 17 and 18 for the benefit of Lots 18 and 19, in order to meet the applicable wastewater standards of EC 9.6505(2) Sewage. 7 Staff Comments and Recommendation: A private wastewater easement is not appropriate nor required for installation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities. The requirement for a private wastewater easement is separate and distinct from any issues related to the proposed stormwater facilities. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. For additional discussion related to the appellant’s desire for private stormwater easements, please also refer to Assignment of Error #5, below. Assignment of Error #2: The Planning Director at the top of Page 20 provides for a new document - an “Irrevocable Petition for public improvements in Capital Drive to include paving, street trees and street lights.” A description of this document indicates: “Irrevocable petitions enable the City to initiate a local improvement process and obligate the property owners to pay their proportional share of the street construction costs in the future. The City could construct the street when the majority of benefitting property owners agrees to pay for the improvement.” Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts that the applicant should pay for this public improvement and, “is attempting to shift this financial burden to unwitting neighbors who have opposed the Capital Hill PUD”. The appellant also claims, “This situation can be construed as “payback” to the family in one of the two existing homes on the west side of Capital Drive as that homeowner has contributed to the neighborhood’s efforts to prevent this development”. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, at EC 9.6505(3) Streets and Alleys, it was determined that the City Engineer will require an Irrevocable Petition over the remaining, unimproved segment of Capital Drive north of the new Capital Drive/Cupola Drive intersection, in lieu of the immediate paving of the street. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Irrevocable petitions are used in many PUD and subdivision project approvals to enable the City to initiate a local improvement process and obligate the property owners to pay their proportional share of the street construction costs in the future. Staff notes that the City could construct the street only when the majority of benefitting property owners agrees to pay for the improvements. Staff disagrees with the appellant’s assertion that an Irrevocable Petition on one property owner shifts financial burden to other property owners or is intended in any way as a form of “payback” to any particular property owner or opponents of the project. Staff also notes that irrevocable petitions are one of the codified means for required public improvements to be ensured at the time of final plat in accordance with EC 9.8565(2)(b). Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. Also see related discussion under Assignment of Error #4, below. 8 Assignment of Error #3: The Planning Director on pages 21 through 23 of the Decision, again goes to great length to support the Eugene Planning Commission’s August 13, 2019 Final Order as it pertains to Condition of Approval #10 of that order. Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant is asserting the same argument as in Final PUD Assignment of Error #4. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, condition of approval #10 was modified by the Planning Commission’s Final Order on Remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (dated August 13, 2019), and will be satisfied at the time of subsequent PEPI, building and site development permits as specified. To ensure compliance at the time of development, this condition of approval will be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Staff relies on its evaluation and recommendation in Final PUD Assignment of Error #4, and the Director’s decision confirming condition of approval #10 is appropriate to include in the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. Assignment of Error #4: The Planning Director on page 24 of the Decision, indicates that the “proposed sidewalks and streets of the development demonstrate compliance with the requirement to provide pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearby attractive features. Therefore, this criterion is met.” Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts that the Director erred because the last 130 feet (approx.) of Capital Drive will remain unimproved with no sidewalks leading to Hendricks Park and therefore does not comply with EC 9.8515(6). Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, the proposed sidewalks and streets of the development demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8515(6) which requires the subdivision to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearby attractive features. The decision also consistent with the approved Tentative PUD as it relates to this topic. Staff Comments and Recommendation: For relevant background, staff notes that the status of this unimproved portion of Capital Drive was addressed in the original staff report for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) (see page 27 of the staff report) where it states that “The applicant has proposed to end the full width improvements of Capital Drive approximately 125 feet south of the property’s northern edge. This will leave the remaining 125 feet as unimproved, which is the current condition. As an informational item, the installation of a street end barricade will be required north of any Capital Drive access points, south of Hendricks Park, during the PEPI process….”. 9 Based on this information, it has been a matter of record since the Tentative PUD approval that this portion of Capital Drive would not be improved as a requirement of the development approval. As found in the Tentative PUD approval, and subsequently in the Tentative Subdivision, the proposed/required public sidewalks and streets of the development otherwise demonstrate compliance with the requirement to provide pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearby attractive features. Staff also notes that improvement of this particular segment of Capital Drive was not raised or further addressed as an issue in the appeal of the Tentative PUD approval. As discussed with respect to Assignment of Error #2 above, the City Engineer has agreed to accept an Irrevocable Petition over this segment of Capital Drive at the time of the subdivision, in lieu of the immediate paving of the street and sidewalk. As stated previously, irrevocable petitions are one of the codified means for required public improvements to be ensured at the time of final plat in accordance with EC 9.8565(2)(b). Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. Assignment of Error #5: The Planning Director on page 30 of the Decision, indicates that the “Runoff north of the high point [of Capital Drive near the “pink house”] will be collected into a proposed catch basin and underground detention tank that will discharge into an existing drainage ditch to the north of the site.” Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts the Director’s decision was incorrect when stating the “existing drainage ditch is to the north of the site”. The existing drainage ditch is to the east of the existing Capital Drive as the street runs north toward Hendricks Park. Therefore, the existing ditch is to the west of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 and at the western edge of the proposed development in this area. At the point that this drainage way reaches the Hendricks Park boundary, it discharges into the existing unimproved ditch to the east of the trail in the park. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, and consistent with referral comments from Public Works staff, it was confirmed that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual compliance with EC 9.6791, subject to a more detailed review for compliance with applicable standards during subsequent permit reviews. Staff Comments and Recommendation: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9, at EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control (page 30) it is stated, “Runoff north of the high point [in Capital Drive] will be collected into a proposed catch basin and underground detention tank that will discharge into an existing drainage ditch to the north of the site”. The Director’s decision refers to an existing unimproved drainage way in Hendricks Park located on the east side of the dirt trail that begins at the park boundary and the end of Capital Drive, which is north of the site. The appellant is correct that stormwater will travel in an improved drainage ditch within Capital 10 Drive on the west side of Lots 1, 2, and 3, but once it exits the site into the drainage way on the Hendricks Park site, it is located north of the Capital Hill site. Also, in the Director’s decision, it was confirmed that the proposed development complies with the standards at EC 9.6793 Stormwater Flow Control (Headwaters) which regulates the stormwater peak flow rates and volumes of the development. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. Assignment of Error #6: The Planning Director on page 30 of the Decision, also discusses the addition of a third level spreader in Tract A below Lots 10 and 11. The stormwater line proposed to “feed” this additional level spreader will travel down the 145 foot (approx.) east/west lot line between Lots 10 and 11. Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant asserts the Director’s decision was incorrect when stating the “entire level spreader system is a disastrous design flaw” (page 5 of appeal statement). The appellant has concerns with the level spreader used on slopes greater than 50% which they assert will exceed the design specifications, and off-site impacts to the Ribbon Trail and homes below on Laurel Hill Drive. The appellant also expresses concern about the need for a private easement for installation and maintenance of the new stormwater line for the level spreader system on the lot line between Lots 10 and 11. Director’s Decision: In the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 (dated September 2019), at EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control, the issue of the new level spreader is discussed as follows (page 30): “Staff notes that the addition of a third level spreader is still in substantial conformance with the approved tentative PUD (PDT 17-01). The proposed addition of a third level spreader will not result in an increase in peak flow rate. Runoff generated from the private street will continue to be treated for water quality and mimic existing conditions on site.” “Staff confirms that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual compliance with this standard and EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2), subject to a more detailed review for compliance with applicable standards during subsequent permit reviews.” The Director correctly determined the proposed development complies with the standards at EC 9.6791 Stormwater Flood Control. With respect to private stormwater easements, the decision does not require, nor has Public Works staff indicated the need for any. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Staff notes that the proposed addition of a third level spreader will not result in an increase in peak flow rate. Runoff generated from the private street will continue to be treated for water quality and mimic existing conditions on site. As stated above, staff has confirmed that the 11 system demonstrates conceptual compliance with applicable stormwater standards, specifically including EC 9.6791(3)(b)(2). The further review for specific design details will be done with the subsequent permit reviews. The first conceptual review was during the Tentative PUD application and now during the Tentative Subdivision stage. The applicant will be required to provide more design detail during as part of the subsequent PEPI permit phase to obtain final approval for construction of the facilities. As for stormwater easements, the proposed level spreader system will be privately owned and maintained, so no public easements would be required under EC 9.6796. It is not clear otherwise, where the appellant cites any error with respect to the approval criteria for the Tentative Subdivision or related standards. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. Assignment of Error #7: The City’s Public Works Staff Report (Referral Comments) were not made available to the public during the open record period that ended on September 6, 2019. Summary of Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argues the Public Works referral comments (revised September 23, 2019) were not posted on the city’s website until September 27, 2019, the same day the Director’s Decision was posted. They assert that the delay in posting the referral comments resulted in the comments not being available to the public. Additionally, the appellant questions the actual received date of a letter from the applicant’s agent (Carol Schirmer) dated September 6, 2019, since there was no “received stamp” or email cover page with the document. The appellant is challenging whether this letter was actually received on September 6, 2019, which was the closing date of the open record period (and the deadline for the Planning Director to be able to consider it in the decision). Staff Comments and Recommendation: The appellant’s assignment of error does not cite any specific code provision or error in the Director’s decision. Staff has advised the members of the neighborhood group in the past that the documents on the City’s website related to this application are not the official record and items posted are only provided as a convenience for the public. The official records and all documents are available for review at the Planning Department, and available to the public upon request. Regarding the challenge of the September 6, 2019 letter from Carol Schirmer, staff has attached the letter in question, as Attachment H, along with the email cover page certifying receipt of this document on September 6, 2019. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision under this assignment of error. 12 ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan (reduced in size) C. Appeal Application and Written Statement (October 14, 2019) D. Application Signature Page, signed (October 15, 2019) E. Written Appeal Statement, revised (October 18, 2019) F. Planning Director’s Decision (PDT 18-2 and ST 18-9) G. Public testimony (October 18, 2019) H. Letter from Carol Schirmer (September 6, 2019) The full record will be provided to the Hearings Official separately. As a courtesy (not the formal record), materials from the application files and related to this appeal are also available on the City’s website at: https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=PDF-18-0002 https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=ST-18-0009 A hardcopy of the full record of materials can also be made available for free inspection at the Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies may also be obtained at a reasonable cost. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 541-682-5453 or via email at ngioello@eugene-or.gov 13  University Heights Subdivsion (ST 18‐9/PDF 18‐2) Vicinity Map Attachment A MA LA HIG R BA WOODLAND DR HL DD DR AN MADR R ONA D R WOODLAWN AVE ST RU SPRING BLVD TA DE ES FLORAL HILL DR TA CR E2 7T AV H E E 28 TH AV E R A LD PIT CA TA AL A C T ST LN VI ESSEX Eugene UGB Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to Subject Property change, and for general reference only. Eugene City Limits Created on 10/30/2019 Taxlots by City of Eugene Planning Division ^ 0 60 120 Ft 240 N Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D  Attachment E From: Susan Hoffman To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: Tom Bruno; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Nate Teich; Gunnar Schlieder; Becky Dorsey; John Curtis; C. W. Murchison; Cathy Johnson; Sheryl Kelly; Susan Hoffman Subject: Revised Initial Appeal Document for University Heights (aka Capital Hill PUD) - PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9. Date: Friday, October 18, 2019 3:33:33 PM Attachments: 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9.pdf [EXTERNAL ] Hi Nick. Per your request from yesterday I have taken the "Word" version of the Response Committee's October 14, 2019 Initial Appeal document and converted it to a PDF so that the formatting remains intact and the document is more legible. I also took the liberty of correcting a few minor typos and references - primarily in the 4th paragraph of the document (bottom of page one and top of page two).   A couple of additional comments. 1) The original October 14, 2019 version of the attached document was signed by Tom Bruno on the last page. Please retain that signed page as the attached document is coming from me (Susan Hoffman) and does not have his signature. If I need to have Tom sign this second version, please advise. 2) I wanted to point out that the receipt on the website for our fees paid on the afternoon of Monday October 14, 2019 is dated Tuesday October 15, 2019. I know your cash register was probably closed for the day as Tom got to your office after 4 PM. Just so that there isn't any confusion, I wanted to clarify here that our appeal form, our fees and our signed appeal narrative (which we are correcting with this email) were all personally delivered to you on Monday October 14, 2019. 3) Just to clarify, and as I mentioned in my email to you yesterday, the inclusion of a 9/28/18 Planning Division receipt for the applicant's (or the applicant's representative's) fee payment was inadvertently included in our October 14, 2019 submission. This xerox of the September 2018 receipt contained a personal note to Tom Bruno including your phone number and the amount of the check he was to deliver to you. I don't know why you have a second copy of that fee receipt in what appears to be a "double exposure" type format. I guess those two fee receipt copies remain "in the record" but I'm indicating here that the receipt was given to you in error as it was just a personal note of Tom's - just so the record contains an explanation. Please enter the attached PDF file and this email cover sheet into the record for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 and confirm via return email. Thanks as always for your help.  Appeal Statement to the Hearing Official of the Planning Director’s Decision dated September 27, 2019 regarding University Heights Subdivision (aka Capital Hill PUD), Files PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 Submitted by the Joint Response Committee (the “Committee”) of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens October 14, 2019 (Revised October 18, 2019 to Correct Legibility Issues at the Planning Division of the October 14, 2019 Version and to Edit Minor Typographical Errors and References) The Committee remains alarmed by the number and magnitude of errors in the Planning Director’s Findings and Decision to approve with conditions the Final PUD Application (PDF 18-2) and the Tentative Subdivision Application (ST 18-9) for University Heights Subdivision (aka Capital Hill PUD). These errors include: inaccurate interpretations of Eugene Codes, uncritically accepting Applicant’s flawed evidence and dismissing oppositional facts and arguments, obviously omitting and ignoring relevant facts and arguments, and insufficiently substantiating matters of judgment by selective use of evidence. The Committee notes that the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director dated September 27, 2019 was not actually prepared by the Planning Director Robin Hostick. Rather, Mr. Hostick designated Senior Planner Mr. Daniel Halverson to prepare this 36 page document. The Committee is disappointed that Mr. Hostick assigned the preparation of this document to a subordinate within the Planning Division, as the proposed project has become one of the most highly criticized and contested developments in Eugene in the past several years. Hopefully, the Planning Director at least reviewed the report before it was published. Further, the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens is remitting herewith a check for $ 2,274.64 for its Appeal Fee which is the amount dictated in the July 1, 2019 Planning Division Fees schedule on the city’s website. The Committee is remitting this amount under protest and questions the applicability of this fee schedule for its appeal of the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director dated September 27, 2019 indicating approval of PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9. The Committee finds it amazing and appalling that the city has approved the Final PUD (PDF 18-2) and the Tentative Subdivision (ST 18-9) applications since the Final PUD application must conform to the approved Tentative PUD Application (PDT 17-1). Specifically, in the numerous diagrams and documents submitted by the applicant, the diagram for level [water] spreaders clearly indicates that the design is to be used on a maximum 20 percent slope. In the narrative being submitted for the LUBA remand of PDT 17-1, the applicant’s mathematical model uses a 25 percent slope. In the documents submitted by the applicant, the applicant’s engineering firm (Branch Engineering) states that the placement of the level spreaders is on a slope closer to 50 percent. The range of slope by  using different methods is between 46 and 29 percent slope. This is covered in more detail on page five of this document. Consequently, EC9.8365 Final Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria has not met. Further, the placement of the third spreader spills water onto the city’s land bordering the Ribbon Trail from Hendricks Park without comment from the park service on this situation. The Committee believes that the approval process for the Final PUD Application (PDF 18-2) and the Tentative Subdivision Application (ST 18-9) should be suspended until final resolution of the pending appeal of the PUD Tentative Application (PDT 17-1) to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The errors as listed in this paragraph and in the remaining part of this document would “prejudice our substantial rights of our due process.” The following appeal issues are listed in the order in which they appear in the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director dated September 27, 2019. All page numbers refer to that document unless otherwise indicated. That document is referred to herein as the “Decision.” As a remedy for the errors we identify in the Decision, we request that the Planning Director’s approval with conditions be reversed and that applications PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 be denied because they fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions of approval. Although some identified errors might be possible to remedy by imposing additional conditions, and we welcome such remedies, we contend that not all of the errors we note below can be resolved by more conditions. Therefore, we request that if you find that at least one criterion for approval is not met, the application should be denied. The Committee members have worked for over two and one half years reviewing the CHPUD and University Heights applications for compliance with Eugene Planning Codes and preparing our various detailed reports. We have paid for professional expert consultants to evaluate technical issues, including geological and geotechnical data. However, in an effort to block our efforts, the Applicant denied the Committee’s consultants access to the development site. We find that the Applicant’s prohibition for access is a direct attempt to withhold information that, were it made available, might expose the project’s negative offsite impacts and endangerment to public health and safety. In addition to the above two issues briefly discussed (correct amount of fees due with this appeal request and inability to access the development site) the following is a summary of the assignments of error noted by the Committee in the Findings and Decision of the Planning Director dated September 27, 2019. The following summary may not be all inclusive of the Committee’s final assignments of error to be addressed to the Hearing Official. The following assignments of error will be more fully discussed in the Committee’s narrative to be made available to the Hearing Official before or at the time of the public hearing per the instructions of the city. Summary of the Committee’s Assignments of Error in the September 27, 2019 Findings and Decision of the Planning Director: Section 1 – Evaluation of Final PUD (PDF 18-2) (Discussion begins on page 6 of the Decision) 1. In her 9/6/19 letter to the Planning Division (attached as Attachment A to the Decision), Carol Schirmer indicates that “No additional trees will be removed as a result of this additional level spreader [the third level spreader added with this application between Lots 10 and 11]. Page 2 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9 10/18/2019 3:01 PM  A review of Plan L 3.4 dated 11/16/18 shows at least 7 large trees that will need to be removed or endangered by the installation of the stormwater line below ground on the lot line between Lot 10 and Lot 11. 2. The Planning Director confirms on page 8 of the Decision that sheet L 3.0 contains a required note about replacing each tree removed for the installation of the stormwater line between Lots 13 and 14 with two trees. This language should also include any trees removed or damaged for installation of the stormwater line between Lots 10 and 11 to the third level spreader. 3. The Planning Director confirms on page 9 of the Decision that Note #3 on Sheet L 2.0 should contain an exact version of the Eugene Planning Commission’s (“EPC”) 8/13/19 Condition of Approval #8 as Note #3 regarding the prohibition of construction activity in the preservation areas. An exception is then made for installation of the stormwater lines between Lots 13 and 14. This language should also include the area between Lots 10 and 11 where the applicant proposes installation of a stormwater line to the third level spreader. 4. The Planning Director at the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 of the Decision confirms that Condition of Approval #10 from the Eugene Planning Commission’s August 13, 2019 Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission on Remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval. The Planning Director states: “To ensure compliance at the time of development, this condition of approval will be incorporated into the performance agreement for the final PUD approval.” The Committee is challenging this condition of approval regarding compliance with geotechnical reports in its pending appeal to LUBA. It should not be included here until that appeal is resolved. Section 2 – Tentative Subdivision Evaluation (ST 18-9) (Discussion begins on page 12 of the Decision) 1. The Planning Director in the middle of page 19 of the Decision imposes a new condition of approval (designated as Condition #11 on page 35 of the Decision) that requires the applicant to create a private wastewater easement across the north lines on Lots 17 and 18 for the benefit of Lots 18 and 19. With this new condition of approval requiring a private wastewater easement for Lots 18 and 19, the Planning Director undermines the Planning Division’s position that no private wastewater easement is currently required for installation/maintenance of the stormwater pipes along the boundary of Lots 10 and 11. Page 3 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9 10/18/2019 3:01 PM  2. The Planning Director at the top of Page 20 provides for a new document - an “Irrevocable Petition for public improvements in Capital Drive to include paving, street trees and street lights.” A description of this document indicates: “Irrevocable petitions enable the City to initiate a local improvement process and obligate the property owners to pay their proportional share of the street construction costs in the future. The City could construct the street when the majority of benefitting property owners agrees to pay for the improvement.” This situation is outrageous. Over the past 2 ½ years the neighborhood has protested the proposed lack of paving on Capital Drive as it approaches Hendricks Park to the north. Now, at this late juncture in the process, the City proposes that the “property owners” (a maximum of 4 households – two existing homes and proposed homes for Lots 1 and 2) cover the cost of improving a public street to protect their homes and their personal safety. The statement by Ms. Schirmer in the November 2018 neighborhood meeting that she conceived of the gravel road as an “esthetic transition” from a paved street to the park is equally outrageous. This situation is, pure and simple, all about decreasing costs to boost profits, to the detriment of the neighborhood at large and now, to four specific families. The applicant (with the city in tow), who should rightfully pay for this public improvement, is attempting to shift this financial burden to unwitting neighbors who have opposed the Capital Hill PUD. This situation can be construed as “payback” to the family in one of the two existing homes on the west side of Capital Drive as that homeowner has contributed to the neighborhood’s efforts to prevent this development. This is absolutely unacceptable. Make the applicant cover his costs. The applicant and his consultants have previously used this same type of cost reduction ploy to eliminate a proposed hammerhead emergency vehicle turnaround between Lots 1 and 2. When the applicant became aware of the cost of that proposed turnaround, a new design was put forth that endangers residents of Lots 1 and 2 because fire trucks will not be able to gain access to the front of their homes. Both of these egregious design flaws underscore the applicant’s and his consultant’s lack of forethought when it concerns project planning and budgeting. 3. The Planning Director on pages 21 through 23 of the Decision, again goes to great length to support the Eugene Planning Commission’s August 13, 2019 Final Order as it pertains to Condition of Approval #10 of that order. See the Committee’s comments in Section 1 Item 4 above. 4. The Planning Director on page 24 of the Decision, indicates that the “proposed sidewalks and streets of the development demonstrate compliance with the requirement to provide pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation to adjacent and nearby attractive features. Therefore, this criterion is met.” This is an error in that the last 130 feet (approx.) at the north end of Capital Drive is not proposed to be paved and has no sidewalks leading to the park entrance. Hendricks Park is Page 4 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9 10/18/2019 3:01 PM  THE attractive feature in this neighborhood. This lack of sidewalks does not comply with Eugene code EC 9.8515(6). 5. The Planning Director on page 30 of the Decision, indicates that the “Runoff north of the high point [of Capital Drive near the “pink house”] will be collected into a proposed catch basin and underground detention tank that will discharge into an existing drainage ditch to the north of the site.” Note: Although the Planning Director states that the “existing drainage ditch is to the north of the site” this is incorrect. The existing drainage ditch is to the east of the existing Capital Drive as the street runs north toward Hendricks Park. Therefore, the existing ditch is to the west of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 and at the western edge of the proposed development in this area. A discussion of this ditch occurs on several pages within Branch Engineering’s 11/16/18 Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study. “Private” stormwater from the project will be combined with existing “public” stormwater runoff and will be channeled north in a 24” diameter underground pipe to an existing above ground ditch on the east side of Capital Drive where it is proposed to be a gravel road. This existing ditch will be widened and improved with a gravel lining, and will run north for 20 feet (at a 4 ½ foot width) and then continue for another 35 feet at a narrower 3 foot width. At the point that this swale reaches the Hendricks Park boundary, it simply discharges the water into the existing unimproved dirt ditch to the east of the dirt trail leading into the park. The water flow from this discharge point could exceed 85 gallons per minute in a heavy storm. The Committee again questions the discharge of so much water onto unimproved park lands. This design, or lack thereof, is a further example of the applicant’s efforts to reduce costs at the expense of public safety and dangerous impacts to offsite areas. 6. The Planning Director on page 30 of the Decision, also discusses the addition of a third level spreader in Tract A below Lots 10 and 11. The stormwater line proposed to “feed” this additional level spreader will travel down the 145 foot (approx.) east/west lot line between Lots 10 and 11. A discussion of this third level spreader is contained in Section 3.1.2 Private Roadway Runoff on page 5 of Branch Engineering’s 11/16/18 Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study. In this discussion of level spreaders, Branch indicates that the “primary location is between lots 13 and 14, with an additional level spreader added to the east side of Lot 10 and 11. This additional level spreader and filter strip was added to spread the flow even wider that what was proposed during Tentative PUD. The Committee is appreciative that, with the addition of the third level spreader, Branch Engineering has essentially acknowledged that their initial plan was inadequate. However, the Committee still maintains that the entire level spreader system is a disastrous design flaw. The Committee’s remaining concerns include, but are not limited to, the following: installation of level spreaders on slopes nearing 50% which is almost twice the design specification limitations; the difficulty of correctly installing the spreaders in an absolute level position, the amount of water emanating from the spreaders during large storms, the fact that water is being added to Page 5 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9 10/18/2019 3:01 PM  landslide prone areas and the potential offsite impacts to the Ribbon Trail and homes below on Laurel Hill Drive. The Committee is also concerned that, although the Planning Director in his 9/27/19 Decision has required a new private stormwater easement for the benefit of Lots 18 and 19 elsewhere in this project (unrelated to Lots 10 and 11), no private easement is being required on the lot line for Lots 10 and 11 for installation and maintenance of the stormwater line leading to the new third level spreader. 7. The City’s Public Works Staff Report (Referral Comments) were not made available to the public during the open record period that ended on September 6, 2019. The Public Works referral comments were posted to the website on 9/27/19 - at the same time that the Planning Division posted their Findings and Decision of the Planning Director dated September 27, 2019. These posted Public Works referral comments have an original 9/6/19 date with a 9/23/19 revision date. Many of the Committee’s issues with the approval of PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 address subject matter discussed in the Public Works referral comments. Therefore, the missing referral comments ensured that the Planning Division was not playing on a “level field” with the Committee. Additionally, a September 6, 2019 letter from Carol Schirmer to Nick Gioello was added as an exhibit to the September 27, 2019 Findings and Decision of the Planning Director. There is neither a “received stamp” on this letter nor an email cover sheet indicating a date sent. The Committee questions if this letter was actually received during the open record period, which closed at 5:00 PM on September 6, 2019. Tom Bruno and Sheryl Kelly - Co-Chairs of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Susan Hoffman, Cathy Johnson, Nate Teich, and Kathleen Masterson – Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens. Page 6 101819 Appeal Issues for PDF18-2 ST18-9 10/18/2019 3:01 PM  Attachment F Atrium Building 99 West l 0" Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5 3 77 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/olanninq N D DECISION E DI FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (AKA CAPITAL HILL PUDr(PDF 18-2 AND ST 18-9) Application Summary: Request for final planned unit development {PUD) and tentative subdivision approval to create a 34-lot residential subdivision with public and private streets and associated infrastructure, consistent with the previously approved Capital Hill PUD tentative planned unit development {PDT 17-1). Applicant: Cynthia and Tom Dryer Applicant's Representative: Carol Schirmer, Schirmer Satre Group, Phone (514) 686-4540 lead City Staff: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division, (541) 682-5453 Subject Property/Zoning/location: Tax Lots 100, 200; 201, 300 and 400 -- Assessor's Map 18-03-04-31. R-1 Low-Density Residential, Tax lots 201, 300 and 400 have /PD Planned Development overlay zoning. The project site is located at the end of _Capital Drive. Relevant Dates: Applications submitted on September 28, 2018, applications deemed incomplete on October 28, 2019; applications deemed complete on March 27, 2019; applicant requests time extension of decision process on March 28, 2019; applicant requests decision process to resume on August 14, 2019; decision granting approval with conditions for PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 issued on September 27, 2019. Background and Present Request The applicant is requesting final PUD and tentative subdivision approval to create 34 residential single-family lots. The proposal includes the improvement of Capital Drive and the addition of a private street and associated infrastructure. This request is subject to the Type II application procedures, which are addressed in Eugene Code section (EC) 9.7200-9.7230. Relevant application requirements and approval criteria for the September 2019 Findings and Decision: PDF 18-2 and ST 18-9 Page 1 Attachment A Attachment B  Attachment G From: Wayne L Harrison To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Hill PUD Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:03:11 PM [EXTERNAL ] Just a short note to express my dismay at approving this extremely unsafe development. I have owned and lived on Capital Drive. It is a very narrow street without parking on either side. Occasionally a guest parks at the curb which adds another dimension to the problem. Getting an emergency vehicle like a firetruck up the street is virtually impossible. Adding an additional 34 lots with the appropriate 68 car traffic will only amplify this untenable situation. This development should not be approved based on safety considerations. Wayne L Harrison Sent from my iPad. Nick Gioello: I am on the mailing list. Thanks for the info.  Attachment H From: Carol Schirmer To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Capital Hill PUD Final and University Heights Subdivision Tentative Date: Friday, September 06, 2019 2:33:26 PM Attachments: Response to City Capital Hill PUD 9-6-19.pdf [EXTERNAL ] Nick: I hope this helps answer some of the questions. Thanks for the conversation today. Thanks carol Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group Planners, Landscape Architects, Environmental Specialists 375 West 4th Suite 201 Eugene, OR 97401 www.schirmersatre.com PH: (541) 686-4540 x1301 Fax: (541) 686-4577 September 6, 2019 Nick Gioello Associate Planner City of Eugene Planning and Development Eugene, Oregon 978401 RE: Final PUD: Capital Hill PUD (PDF 18-2) Subdivision-Tentative: University Heights (ST 18-9) Nick: The following are responses to some of the items you and I discussed recently. Plan Set Dates It appears the cover sheets on both plan sets created confusion. The Subdivision- Tentative University Heights Cover Sheet was inadvertently put on both plan sets. Mistakes happen. The cover sheet is informational rather than a sheet that is used to evaluate the code criterion. You can think of it like the Table of Contents for a book. This cover sheet mix up explains a couple of things. Plan Sets (digital) • The PUD Final plan set accidently got the cover sheet from the Subdivision set. • The cover sheet is incorrect but the date on that cover sheet is correct for the PUD set. • L4.0 and L5.0 are in the set. They are simply not listed on the cover sheet. If the correct PUD cover sheet had been used those sheets would have been listed on the index on PUD set only. Those sheets were not a requirement of the Subdivision. • The date on the PUD Final set is different than the Subdivision set because we had already printed 5 large sets of the PUD plans when we decided to wait to turn them in. When we printed the Subdivision set we decided to put the date of printing on them (11.21.18) instead of the date that we thought we wanted to turn them in (11.16.18). We did not reprint the PUD Final set just to change the date so it would match the Subdivision set. We make these decisions in order to not waste time and paper. The only date that matters is the date the city stamps on them during intake. • Both sets of drawings contain the same relevant information to meet the code criterion. They are not different in that respect. Conditions of Approval The only condition of approval that was revised as a result of the Planning Commission hearings and decision was condition 10. The text of that condition changed. It did not require a change to the drawings. Missing dates The date has never been on the survey. I have no idea why or why not. It just is. Mistakes happen. The date is not relevant to any code criterion. The date on the Tree Preservation List is missing. Again, mistakes can happen on large sets of drawings. The date is irrelevant. The only date that matters is the date the city stamps on the set at intake. Also, information on this list does not change once we submit. It is a data sheet. The trees listed are the trees on site, the size, species and health from submittal to submittal. Final PUD: Capital Hill PUD (PDF 18-2) Page 2 of 2 Subdivision- Tentative: University Heights (ST 18-9) Responses September 6, 2019 Fire Turnaround: There is a paragraph in the Subdivision written statement that says there is a turn around between lots 1 and 2. We revised this on the plans in order to save trees, create less impervious surface, and create less disturbance to the properties. This change was not reflected in the written statement but should have been. The drawings reflect the actual decision that was agreed to by both fire and public works. Capital Drive paving was extended to a length agreed to by both fire and public works. From that point Capital Drive continues as gravel. It was explained at a neighborhood meeting that the reason for the gravel was intentional. There is a desire by the design team to pave less and leave existing conditions as they are. It is much nicer to continue to walk on a gravel drive towards Hendricks Park then a fully improved paved road. The fire truck would drive as far as the pavement end and then pull their hoses from there. This decision meets fire code. The homes will all be sprinklered. The fire truck could back up from there and then turn around at the intersection. Again, fire has approved this. Level Spreader Out of an abundance of caution as a result of concerns raised in the public record and at the hearing we added a level spreader at a second location. Currently the stormwater that will be conveyed by these 3 level spreaders (in 2 locations) is less than the water that current travels down that hill. This was discussed extensively and more eloquently in Branch Engineering’s submittal during the Planning Commission appeal. No additional trees will be removed as a result of this additional level spreader. I think that covers it. Please let me know if you need any additional clarification on anything. Sincerely, Schirmer Satre Group Carol Schirmer Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540