Ken Helm, City of Eugene <br />Re: Final Rebuttal - Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />for a future loop connection and access road would require an additional <br />10,000 square feet of the subject property, which reduces the overall allowed <br />density. <br />However, the City's net density standards do not require a density <br />reduction in the project. <br />Initially, it is important to understand what Eugene Code section <br />9.2751 actually requires. It provides for the exclusion of land used for "public <br />and private streets and alleys, public parks, and other public facilities." <br />Easements are not excluded from the calculation of net density, nor should <br />they be. Unlike public or private roads or pedestrian accessways, utility <br />easements are not open to the general public. Rather, the owners of Oakleigh <br />Meadows Co-Housing retain the ability to exclusively use utility easement <br />areas as common property, provided that this use does not unreasonably <br />interfere with the underlying easement. Accordingly, a future water line <br />easement would not reduce.the net density at all. <br />Second, even if EC 9.2751 were interpreted to apply to a water line <br />easement, there is no existing water line easement on the property that would <br />reduce the project density. EC 9.2751 does not require a density reduction <br />based solely on the need for a future development. The potential water <br />connection is not like the City's required road expansion, where an identified <br />area of the property is being dedicated now for future public use. Rather, it is <br />an identification of a future need for the area and an invitation to apply to <br />EWEB for the design of the facilities. Neither the identification of need nor <br />the invitation reduces the net density of the property. <br />Finally, even if the easement were to be considered, the potential water <br />line easement can be accommodated on the subject property without <br />reducing the project's overall density. The opponents appear to have <br />confused EWEB's request for an easement with the need for a separate land <br />area to accommodate the same. The subject property already has an existing <br />public utility easement along its eastern boundary to accommodate the sewer <br />line in the area. It would be most reasonable to co-locate the new water line <br />within the existing 20-foot easement. In fact, as EWEB notes, state law allows <br />sewer and water lines to be located within five feet of one another as long as <br />there is adequate vertical separation. Even if the lines needed to be spaced <br />ten feet apart, the two easements would not. The project could still <br />accommodate both easements without reducing overall density. Accordingly, <br />the Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing Project is consistent with density <br />requirements for the PUD zone. <br />438 <br />