1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITYATCORNEYS <br />OFFICE <br />125 E, & Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 87401 <br />Phone (541~682-0447 <br />Fax(541)662-5414 <br />future development of tax lot 200, the only remaining undeveloped parcel on <br />the east end of Oakleigh Lane. Rec. 1443. The shadow plat included a <br />possible hammerhead at the end of Oakleigh Lane that could provide access, <br />via a shared driveway, to future development on four potential lots out of tax <br />lot 200. The City concluded that the alternate street plan would satisfy the <br />intent of the connectivity standards and demonstrate how nearby <br />undeveloped or partially developed properties could be adequately served by <br />alternative street layouts. EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1)a. and b. <br />Petitioners, two of whom are owners of tax lot 200, assert that <br />"placing the burden of constructing this hammerhead onto the Thoms <br />property [tax lot 2001 is a taking of their property." Petitioners' Opening <br />Brief 3 3. What Petitioners fail to realize is that the shadow plat, which is <br />part of applicant's street connectivity study, in no way requires or exacts any <br />property from the owners of tax lot 200 at this time. The shadow plat may <br />not even ever become a reality. It is only a schematic of how a possible <br />future development of tax lot 200 might look, and how that property's <br />transportation needs could be accommodated. It is true that the shadow <br />hammerhead falls largely on tax lot 200. However, the challenged approval <br />in no way requires the owners of tax lot 200 to dedicate any of their land- at <br />this time. If the hammerhead were ever to be built, the City would only be <br />able to require dedication of land from the Thoms that is roughly <br />proportionate to the impacts from any future development they might <br />propose. This in no way, shape or form constitutes a taking of their <br />property. <br />111 <br />111 <br />Page 22 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />