Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, Oregon 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in this agenda item. Feel free to come and go as you please at the meeting. 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 prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Department at 541-682-5675. TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2018 – 5:30 P.M. A. DELIBERATIONS/POSSIBLE ACTION: APPEAL OF FURTICK FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (City Files PDT 17-4 and ARA 17-15) The Planning Commission will deliberate and possibly take action on an appeal of Hearings Official approval of a Needed Housing Tentative Planned Unit Development application and an Adjustment Review application submitted by Furtick Family Limited Partnership. Lead City Staff: Dan Lawler, 541-682-5282 daniel.r.lawler@ci.eugene.or.us Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Chair); Tiffany Edwards; Lisa Fragala; Chris Ramey; William Randall; Kristen Taylor  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Dan Lawler, Eugene Planning Division Subject: Deliberations/Action: Appeal of Hearings Official Decision on a Needed Housing Tentative Planned Unit Development and Adjustment Review for Furtick Family Limited Partnership (City files PDT 17-4 and ARA 17-15) ACTION REQUESTED On July 3, 2018 the Planning Commission will deliberate and possibly take action on an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official’s decision approving Needed Housing Tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Adjustment Review applications submitted by Furtick Family Limited Partnership (City file PDT 17-4 and ARA 17-15). BRIEFING STATEMENT For detailed background on this PUD request and the current appeal, please refer to the existing record materials provided separately. In preparation for deliberations, staff recommends that the commission review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) provided for the recent public hearing (dated June 26, 2018) and its attachments, including the Hearings Official’s decision, as well as the written appeal statement from the Fairmont Neighbors Association. At the recent public hearing on this appeal, held on June 26, 2018, the commission received testimony from the applicant and neighborhood appellants, as well as a number of other individuals. All admissible written testimony received since publication of the last agenda item summary, and through the close of the public hearing, has been provided to the commission. Initial Procedural and Evidentiary Matters As a reminder, the Commission’s decision-making process on this appeal is limited to the existing record and no new evidence is allowed. See EC 9.7655(2). There are several procedural matters for the commission to consider, including Jason Brown’s challenge to the impartiality of Commissioner Tiffany Edwards and a determination of whether to reject (not consider) any of the testimony submitted before the close of the June 26, 2018 hearing. Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sommers will attend the deliberations to help the commission walk through the procedural issues. The commission will need to address the procedural issues before deliberating and acting on the substance of the appeals. Deliberations Following the initial procedural and evidentiary matters to be decided upon at this meeting, staff recommends that the commission address the four appeal issues in order. 1 Staff recommends that an initial straw poll or show of hands be taken on each appeal issue (whether to affirm, modify or reverse the Hearings Official) so that staff has clear direction on preparation of a final order reflecting the Planning Commission’s decision. This will hopefully facilitate an efficient and transparent decision-making process, and need not include a formal motion on each appeal issue. Upon completion of deliberations, a formal motion can be made to reflect the final outcome. Decision Timeline As noted previously, the City is required to reach a final local decision within 120 days of the date the application was deemed complete. In this case, the Planning Commission has until July 7, 2018 to reach its final decision unless the applicant agrees to grant additional time. The Planning Commission has a second deliberations meeting scheduled for July 5, 2018 at 11:30am in Harris Hall of the Lane County Public Service Building. Making a Decision If the Planning Commission seeks to modify the Hearings Official’s decision, for example, by adding or revising conditions of approval, , staff will need specific direction on those changes, as well as specific findings supporting the commission’s decision. In the event of reversal of the Hearings Official’s decision (denial of the application), the Planning Commission will need to provide direction on clear findings, relying upon existing evidence in the record, to explain which PUD approval criteria are not met. Staff is available as part of this process to facilitate whatever final decision is made and to help draft a final order that can affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official’s decision. The attached DRAFT final order reflects staff’s recommendation and is intended to serve as a template for a final order; however, the commission is in no way bound by the draft order and may modify or change it as the commission sees fit. The draft order is only provided as a guide and preliminary recommendation from staff, and is completely subject to change based on what the commission decides. ATTACHMENTS A. DRAFT Final Order The entire record of materials for the subject application is available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices and has been provided to the Planning Commission separately. A printed copy of the record materials will also be available at the deliberations meeting (with a paginated index to help locate specific materials). FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Daniel Lawler, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, by phone at (541) 682-5282, or by e-mail at Daniel.r.lawler@ci.eugene.or.us. 2  DRAFT FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APPEAL OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL’S TENTATIVE APPROVAL FOR Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 and ARA 17-15) ______________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION This final order concerns an appeal of a decision by the Eugene Hearings Official approving a needed housing tentative planned unit development (PUD) application and an adjustment review application. The subject property is approximately 4.48 acres, vacant, and is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. The property is located north of the intersection of Spring Boulevard and 30th Avenue, and south of Central Boulevard. Furtick Family Limited Partnership (Applicant) filed an application for a needed housing tentative planned unit development and an adjustment review. The proposal includes 14 residential lots, an open space tract, and an adjustment review to pave only a portion of the existing Spring Boulevard right-of-way. The Eugene Hearings Official held the initial public hearing on this request on April 25, 2018. Following the hearing and open record period for additional testimony, he approved the applicant’s tentative PUD and adjustment review with 10 conditions of approval on May 31, 2018. The appeal was filed by the Fairmount Neighbors Association and Pat Holleran, Betsy Datri, Bill Blix, Katie Dixon, Larry Weinerman, Kyra Carroll, Paul Nicholson, and Ginnie Lo on June 13, 2018. The neighbors’ appeal includes four appeal issues. On June 15, 2018, the City mailed written notice of the appeal hearing and the Planning Commission held the public hearing on the appeal on June 26, 2018. At the public hearing, attorney Michael Reeder and engineer Renee Clough provided oral testimony on behalf of the applicant. Charles Woodward IV provided testimony on behalf of the Fairmont Neighbors Association as appellant. Sean Malone, Larry Weinerman, Jason Brown, and Jennifer Jonak spoke in opposition to the application. There was no public testimony supporting or neutral regarding the application. The applicant’s legal counsel, Michael Reeder, followed with final rebuttal testimony. Written testimony was also submitted by several individuals. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on June 26, 2018. The Planning Commission deliberated on the appeal issues at its meetings on July 3 and 5, 2018, and reached its final decision on July 5, 2018. The Planning Commission affirmed the Hearings Official’s approval of the tentative PUD and adjustment review, as set forth in Section IV, below. DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 1 As described below, with this July 5, 2018 Final Order, the Planning Commission affirms the Hearings Official’s May 31, 2018 decision. The Planning Commission’s decision is detailed below with respect to each assignment of error. II. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION The record before the Planning Commission consists of all the items that were placed before, and not rejected by, the Planning Commission prior to its final decision on this appeal. The record in this appeal was physically placed before the Planning Commission at the hearing and deliberations on this appeal and was also provided electronically to each of the commissioners. Under EC 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are “on the record,” that is, the Planning Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Hearings Official. In addition, appeals to the Planning Commission are “limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues.” The Planning Commission’s decision on the appeal is based upon consideration of all relevant evidence and argument within the record. III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES Bias/Ex Parte Contacts At the Planning Commission hearing on June 26, 2018, Chair Barofsky announced that while he is a board member of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, he did not have any ex parte contacts related to the application on appeal and that he can make an unbiased decision based on the evidence and argument in the record. Additionally, Commissioner Taylor announced that while she is a resident of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, she did not have any ex parte contacts related the application on appeal and that she can make an unbiased decision based on the evidence and argument in the record. During the staff presentation at the June 26, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission Chair stated that any person in the audience had the right to rebut the substance of any of the ex parte communications, and asked whether anyone in the audience wished to challenge the qualifications of any of the Planning Commissioners. There were no challenges to the qualifications or impartiality of Commissioners Barofsky or Taylor. During the public testimony portion of the hearing, Jason Brown challenged the impartiality of Commissioner Tiffany Edwards. At the time Mr. Brown lodged his objection, Commissioner Edwards’ term on the Planning Commission had not begun so she could not respond as a Planning Commissioner at the public hearing. The public hearing on this application was held on June 26, 2018, and Commissioner Edwards’ term did not begin until July 1, 2018. At the Commission’s July 3, 2018 meeting, Commissioner Edwards stated that she could make an unbiased decision based on the evidence and argument in the record. Rejection of Testimony At the Planning Commission meeting held on July 3, 2018, the Planning Commission rejected the following portions of written testimony submitted prior to the close of the June 26, 2018 hearing. 1. *Place Holder* 2. *Place Holder* 3. *Place Holder* DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 2  4. *Place Holder* IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the subject application meets all applicable PUD approval criteria from EC 9.8320 as specified by the Hearings Official, with the additional findings described below. In the event of any conflict between the Hearings Official’s decision and this Final Order, this Final Order shall prevail. The Hearings Official’s decision is adopted by reference and included as Attachment A. As noted above, the Planning Commission was presented with an appeal filed by the Fairmount Neighbors Association that includes four appeal issues. Each assignment of error in the appeal is set forth below, followed by the Planning Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each one. The Planning Commission’s deliberations supporting this decision took place on July 3 and 5, 2018. Appeal The appeal submitted by the Fairmount Neighbors Association includes four appeal issues identifying alleged errors in the Hearings Official’s decision approving the Furtick Family Limited Partnership tentative PUD application. The appeal makes the case that the Hearings Official’s decision should be reversed (and the application should be denied). The Planning Commission’s findings and conclusions related to each appeal issue are provided below. Appeal Issue #1: The Hearings Official erred regarding the applicability of the South Hills Study (“SHS”) to this needed housing PUD application by confining the scope of the SHS to relate only to the density of the proposed development. As a result, the DHO [Decision of the Hearing’s Official] lacks consideration of factors expressed in the SHS necessary to support a finding that EC 9.8325(2) is satisfied. Hearings Official’s Decision EC 9.8325(2) states: (2) The proposed land uses and densities within the PUD are consistent with the land use designation(s) shown on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, as refined in any applicable refinement plan. On pages 5 and 6 of the Hearings Official’s Decision, the Hearings Official notes that “land uses and densities being consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans” refers to the specific type of land use (in this case, low density residential housing) and specific density maximums and minimums (in this case, 5 units per acre or less). The Hearings Official also stated that “EC 9.8325(2) does not sweep in sundry other policies and recommendations from refinement plans,” but even if those policies and recommendations “were somehow applicable they are obviously not clear and objective standards as required by the needed housing statutes.” (See Hearings Official’s Decision page 6). Thus, the Hearings Official determined that DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 3 EC 9.8325(2) is satisfied because the proposed PUD complies with the Metro Plan’s low density residential land use designation and the 5 unit per acre maximum density limit of the South Hills Study. Summary of Appellants’ Argument In the appeal statement (see pages 1 and 2), Appellants argue that the proposed PUD’s consistency with the designations of the Metro Plan and South Hills Study is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of EC 9.8325(2) that the PUD’s land use be consistent with the Metro Plan and South Hills Study’s land use designations. Rather than just compare designations, Appellants argue that consistency between proposed and designated land uses should be determined by applying policy statements under the “Specific Recommendations” subheading of the SHS. The Appellants believe the factors under the subheading must be evaluated, including the potential for surface movement, the view potential of the property, the nature of existing vegetation, the nature of surrounding development, and the nature of the development proposal to determine consistency between proposed and designated land uses. Finally, Appellants argue that the “Specific Recommendations” of the South Hills Study require that the PUD procedures be utilized to accommodate siting in areas with the least amount of vegetation, and that the PUD failed to do so. Planning Commission’s Determination The Planning Commission agrees with the conclusion of the Hearings Official that EC 9.8325(2) is satisfied because the proposed PUD complies with the Metro Plan’s low density residential land use designation and the 5 unit per acre maximum density limit of the South Hills Study. The Planning Commission agrees that EC 9.8325(2) merely requires a proposed PUD’s land use and density to be consistent with land use designations within the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. Here, the proposed Furtick PUD is a low-density residential land use and the Metro Plan designates the site’s land use as low-density residential. Although the South Hills Study does not contain land use designations, it does contain a density limit of 5 units per acre or less for residential uses in the project area. The proposed Furtick PUD has a density of 2.9 units per acre. Thus, the proposed Furtick PUD complies with the land use designations of the Metro Plan and the density requirements of the South Hills Study. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #2: The Hearings Official erred in finding EC 9.8325(4) satisfied as there is insufficient evidence to sustain a dispositive finding according to the applicable provisions. Hearings Official’s Decision EC 9.8325(4)(a) states: (4) For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD preserves existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following: (a) The provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 4  Removal Standards, (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). EC 9.6885(2)(a) states that: (2) Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. No permit for a development activity subject to this section shall be approved until the applicant submits plans or information, including a written report by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect, that demonstrates compliance with the following standards: (a) The materials submitted shall reflect that consideration has been given to preservation in accordance with the following priority: 1. Significant trees located adjacent to or within waterways or wetlands designated by the city for protection, and areas having slopes greater than 25%; 2. Significant trees within a stand of trees; and 3. Individual significant trees. On Page 7 of the Hearings Official’s Decision, the Hearings Official determined that the applicant’s arborist provided a tree study that demonstrates consideration of the trees on site. In the study, the arborist explains that the large open space tract on the northern portion of the property will retain trees in areas having greater than 25% slope, while the proposed road and building envelopes would take up a large amount of the remaining property. Thus, the Hearings Official determined that EC 9.8325(4) is satisfied because the arborist’s study demonstrated sufficient consideration of the trees on site, as required by EC 9.6885(2)(a). Summary of Appellants’ Argument On Pages 3 and 4 of the appeal statement, Appellants argue that the arborist’s study fails to show that EC 9.6885(2)(a) and EC 9.8325(4) are satisfied. Specifically, Appellants claim that the arborist’s study shows that the trees were evaluated, but the proposal itself does not reflect consideration of preserving significant trees within a stand of trees or individual significant trees. Appellants believe that because the proposed road placement cuts through an area with a high concentration of individually significant trees, this criterion is not met. Finally, Appellants contend that the Conditions of Approval should impose a limitation on tree removal in each lot’s title, instead of leaving tree removal on individual lots to future owners’ discretion. Thus, Appellants believe that the Hearings Official erred in determining that the proposal satisfies EC 9.6885(2)(a) and EC 9.6880 (Purpose of Tree Preservation and Removal Standards). Planning Commission’s Determination The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that EC 9.6885(2)(a) and EC 9.8325(4) are satisfied because the proposal considers preservation of significant trees within a stand and individually significant trees. Although Appellants claim the proposal does not consider significant trees within a stand, Applicant’s written statement states that “the Open Space tract facilitates the strategic preservation of both trees on slopes greater than 25% and within a stand.” (Emphasis added) (See Page 6 of Applicant’s January 2018 Written Statement). Indeed, the Applicant’s site plan shows stands of significant trees in the DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 5 Open Space tract on the northern end of the property and indicates that they will not be removed. (See Page 1, Existing Conditions, of Applicant’s site plan). In addition, the site plan shows stands that include moderate and high priority trees on the southern and southwestern portions of the site and indicates that most of the trees in these stands will remain, although their removal is at the discretion of a future lot owner. Therefore, Applicant’s written statement and site plan show consideration of significant trees, consistent with this criterion. Appellants’ claim that the proposal failed to consider individual significant trees overlooks information contained in Applicant’s written statement and site plans. The written statement says that “lot sizes are large to facilitate preservation of individual trees throughout the PUD” and that “small lots have less yard space which increases the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) impacts.” (See Page 6 of Applicant’s January 2018 Written Statement). Designing lot sizes in a manner that facilitates preservation of individual trees is clearly a consideration related to tree preservation. In addition, although Appellants claim the proposal merely evaluated, rather than considered, tree preservation, declining to remove individual moderate and high priority trees in the northern, southern, and southwestern portions of the site at this time indicates that the proposal not only considers preservation of those trees, but promotes their actual preservation. The fact that some moderate and high priority trees on the northeastern portion of the site are marked for removal does not negate the proposal’s consideration of individually significant trees on other portions of the site. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #3: The Hearings Official erred in finding that the proposed PUD does not run afoul of the prohibition on grading on slopes exceeding 20% contained in EC 9.8325(5). Hearings Official’s Decision EC 9.8325(5) states: (5) There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. The Hearings Official determined that the PUD did not propose grading on slopes exceeding 20% because proposed activity on the slopes constitutes excavating, rather than grading. Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code does not define “grading,” so the Hearings Official used Webster’s New World Dictionary (Second Edition) to define the term “grading” as “to make (ground) level or slope (ground) evenly for a roadway, etc.” (See Hearings Official’s Decision Pages 8-9). The Hearings Official determined that grading is concerned with levelling or flattening an area to either perfectly flat or a consistent slope to prepare the ground for something like a foundation, driveway, or road. In contrast, the Hearings Official used the Webster’s New World Dictionary to reason that excavation is more concerned with “digging or making a hole or uncovering something – such as digging holes for underground lines or posts.” (See Hearings Official’s Decision Page 9). Applying the definitions of excavation and grading to the Applicant’s proposal, the Hearings Official reasoned that installing wastewater and stormwater lines and cantilevered dwellings on posts in areas of 20% slopes constitutes DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 6 excavation, rather than grading, so long as the applicant does not level out the slope. The Hearings Official imposed a condition of approval (see Condition of Approval #1 on page 11 of the decision) to ensure compliance with this criterion. Thus, the Hearings Official determined that the proposal satisfies EC 9.8325(5). Summary of Appellants’ Argument Appellants believe that the Hearings Official erred in determining that EC 9.8325(5) is satisfied because, in their view, installing wastewater and stormwater lines in areas of 20% slope does involve grading. According to Appellants (see page 4 of Appeal Statement), excavating trenches for these lines requires that: “the trench is graded to a consistent slope such that drainage of the intended pipe, whether for waste or stormwater, is not compromised. Then, when returning the removed dirt to cover the pipes and fill in the remainder of the trench, grading again occurs to match the disturbed area with the slope of the existing area on either side of the trench such that a consistent slope is maintained across the once disturbed area.” (See Appeal Statement Page 4). Further, Appellants argue that the Hearings Official’s first Condition of Approval indicates that grading will occur. The Condition states that for areas of 20% slope or greater, “the applicant shall provide a profile of the existing grade line for the area within which an activity to develop is proposed, and a plan to demonstrate how the grade line will be retained or otherwise restored.” (See Hearings Official’s Decision Page 11). Appellants contend that under the Hearings Official’s Condition, “one can excavate to any extent, so long as the initial grade is restored,” but that excavating to disturb the grade and then restoring it constitutes grading under the Hearings Official’s definition of the term. Thus, Appellants claim that EC 9.8325(5) is not satisfied. Planning Commission’s Determination The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that grading will not occur on slopes exceeding 20% and that EC 9.8325(5) is satisfied. First, excavating a trench and installing wastewater and stormwater lines results in the filling of a cavity, which aligns closely with the Hearings Official’s definition of “excavation.” Thus, what the Applicant proposes is excavation, rather than grading. Similarly, returning removed dirt to cover the surface of the excavated and filled trench does not constitute grading under the Hearings Official’s definition of the term. The Hearings Official describes grading as “to make (ground) level or slope (ground) evenly for a roadway, etc.” and levelling or flattening an area to either perfectly flat or a consistent slope to prepare the ground for something like a foundation, driveway, or road. (See Page 9 of Hearings Official’s Decision). Both descriptions of the term grading—which Appellants embrace and accept in their appeal statement—indicate that the activity is used to prepare the ground for development or building that will occur upon it. Simply leveling fill dirt to a consistent slope on top of a trench is not grading because it does not prepare the ground for building that will occur on top of it. This is a key difference between excavating and grading. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that grading will not occur on areas exceeding 20% slope and that EC 9.8325(5) is satisfied. DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 7 Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #4: The Hearings Official erred in extending the right of way designation of Tax Lot 301 to encompass a roadway, which by extension formed the basis for the erroneous finding that EC 9.8325(6) is satisfied. Hearings Official’s Decision EC 9.8325(6) states: (6) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). The Hearings Official stated that “although opponents’ argument is difficult to follow, they appear to argue that there is not a safe and adequate transportation system because Spring Boulevard is not a City street.” (See Hearings Official’s Decision Page 10). The Hearings Official also responded to Appellants’ argument that “Spring Boulevard ends at the southern end of Tax Lot 301 and the area north of that is a City trail” by stating that “Tax Lot 301 is a City owned lot that has right-of-way for the extension of Spring Boulevard,” and thus, EC 9.8325(6) is satisfied. (See Hearings Official’s Decision Page 10). Summary of Appellants’ Argument Appellants argue that although Tax Lot 301 is indeed a City owned lot, the reserved right-of- way is for a shared path trail as outlined in the Eugene Transportation System Plan. Appellants go on to say that “there was no right of way granted that ran with the deed of Tax Lot 301,” that “there was no dedication to the public of the right-of-way,” and that the “alleged right-of- way for the proposed road is not so designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way Map.” (See Appeal Statement Page 6). For these reasons, Appellants claim that the Hearings Official lacked a sufficient basis for satisfying EC 9.6805 and EC 9.8325(6). Planning Commission’s Determination The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that Tax Lot 301 has right-of-way for the extension of Spring Boulevard and that EC 9.8325(6) is satisfied. Although Appellants claim that Tax Lot 301 is reserved as right-of-way for a shared path trail, the Lot’s deed, which is in the record, shows otherwise. Page 2 of the deed states that the: “City, by acceptance of this grant, hereby declares that it has full knowledge that the subject real property conveyed by this grant was acquired with road funds of Lane County and hereby accepts the legal obligations and restrictions of use of the property for public road purposes as provided for under Oregon law and this grant.” (Emphasis added) Thus, the Lot’s deed identifies that the property should be used for “public road purposes” and DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 8 does not restrict the use of the property to trails as Appellants claim. In addition, although the Street Right-of-Way Map does not show this segment of Spring Boulevard, it is noted that Street Right-of-Way Map only shows arterial and collector streets. Public Works referral comments indicate that after improvements are made, the City intends to classify the street as an access lane, which is a public street. (See Page 4 of Public Works Referral Comments). Further, Spring Boulevard’s proposed 60 feet of right-of-way and 28 feet of paving are consistent with Eugene Code’s requirements for right-of-way and paving widths. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that Tax Lot 301 has right-of-way for the extension of Spring Boulevard and that EC 9.8325(6) is satisfied. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. V. CONCLUSION The Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the assignments of error in the appeals, and has voted to affirm the decision of the Hearings Official to conditionally approve the needed housing tentative PUD and adjustment review for Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-5). The conditions of approval imposed by the Hearings Official and adopted by the Planning Commission are included below for ease of reference. 1. Prior to any activity that would “develop” (as defined by EC 9.0500) any portion of the subject property shown with areas of slope at 20% or greater, the applicant shall provide a profile of the existing grade line for the area within which an activity to develop is proposed, and a plan to demonstrate how the grade line will be retained or otherwise restored following the development activity. 2. The applicant shall provide a barrier at the north terminus of the improvements of Spring Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 3. The applicant shall record a deed restriction prior to final plat approval and subject to approval by the City, to ensure that Lot 4 will never be further divided. Alternatively, the Final Site Plan shall include a note that Lot 4 shall not be further divided. 4. The Final Site Plans shall include the following note: “No building, structure, tree, or other obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a Public Utility Easement, consistent with EC 9.6500(3).” 5. The Final Site Plans shall include the following note: “Prior to development, a Privately Engineered Public Improvement permit shall be issued for the construction of public improvements.” 6. The Final Site Plans shall include the following note: “No fences shall be placed or located in the 30-foot buffer area required by EC 9.8325(3).” DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 9  7. As part of the PEPI permit for improvements to Spring Boulevard, the applicant shall provide street lights that comply with the standards for the PEPI permit. 8. The Final Site Plan shall be revised to show an access restriction strip along the entire frontage of Spring Boulevard and Central Boulevard (East 29th Avenue) the applicant does not propose improvements for. 9. Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall provide planting details that demonstrate that the trees located in the vision clearance area at the intersection of Summit View Lane and Spring Boulevard will not create a visual obstruction from 2.5 to 9 feet above the curb line; or, the trees will be located outside of the vision clearance area. 10. Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall update their stormwater management plan and drainage study with calculations to demonstrate that post-development levels are equal to or less than pre-development levels. Accordingly, the Needed Housing PUD and Adjustment Review applications are hereby approved with conditions. The foregoing findings and conclusions are adopted as the Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission on Appeal of the Hearings Official’s Tentative Approval for Furtick Family Limited Partnership Needed Housing PUD and Adjustment Review (PDT 17-1 and ARA 17-15), on this 5th day of July, 2018. ______________________________ John Barofsky, Chair Eugene Planning Commission Attachment A: Hearings Official’s Decision, dated May 31, 2018. DRAFT Final Order: Furtick Family Limited Partnership PUD (PDT 17-4 & ARA 17-15) Page 10