Eugene Planning Commission . <br />Hearings Official Errors - PDT 13-1 Testimony from Bryn Thorns <br />comments are not given as much merit as the-City's recommendations or the applicant's; <br />"strenuous assertions" of how their application meets code. <br />I think it's important for the PC to understand that the.opposing neighbors of the proposed PUD <br />are not viewed as simply anti-development neighbors and that respect is given to them as <br />reasonable and understanding citizens that live in the Urban Growth Boundary. They are fully <br />aware of infill and agree with the premise of infill and they understand the Metro Plan's goals. <br />What they do not agree with, is maximized development with no compromise for the local <br />neighbors, which is, exactly the situation with this particular PUD. They also need to understand <br />that the local neighbors of infill development generally do not have the resources to compete <br />with developers, nor do they have the time, or level of experience. That does not mean that their <br />arguments should be dismissive purely because they didn't directly tie them to code or because <br />they appear to not have the "same level of education or experience in land use as the <br />professionals. <br />The errors that I chose to provide additional narrative on in this letter do not touch on traffic or <br />safe ROW widths because much of that is covered in other testimony. <br />Errors with Supporting Narrative <br />Subassignnent of Error 2.A <br />TAe Hearings Official erroneously found that the applicant's proposed street design <br />would adequately serve Tax Lot 200, despite severely limiting future development of that <br />lot, which is under ownership of opponents of the PUD. <br />The Hearings Official's decision is a clear exaction from the owner of Tax Lot 200 to the <br />benefit of the applicant. 7his decision fails to. meet the constitutional standards for such <br />exactions. <br />The City Staff report states that the proposed street connectivity plan is adequate and that Eugene <br />Code (EC) says that the street connectivity exemption only needs to show how an undeveloped <br />lot could be developed, not that it needs to be developed to the max extent possible. This goes <br />again9t the whole infill motive that is driving the 14 units/acre density and the approved PUD of <br />OMC. Shouldn't the assumption be that the undeveloped lot will be infilled to 14 units per acre <br />or as close to it as possible, which could only be done using the PUD code and not the R-1 <br />standards as suggested 'by the three flag lots proposed in the applicant's street connectivity <br />exemption. In addition, the only way to develop TL 200 at PUD type dens4es, would require a <br />larger ROW both in width at the end of Oakleigh and a length extended beyond the east end of <br />Oakleigh. In addition to that, the safety issue comes up and the traffic argument presented in the <br />second assignment of error suggest that even if Oakleigh were a low density road and the <br />development occurred at the proposed density, this would disallow PUD type developments of <br />the remaining undeveloped lots on Oakleigh Lane. Because the ADT on Oakliegh would be <br />limited to 750 and the.proposed development is pushing 400 to 500-cumulative ADT on <br />Oakleigh lane. <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />304 <br />