Monday, April 26, 1999 <br />Item # 197 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />ATTN: Teresa Bishow VIA FAX 514-682-5572 <br />Dear Teresa: <br />Contrary to testimony heard today, there are presently almost no exceptions to the connectivity rule <br />which would help us avoid violating other laws and standards in some cases of required connections. <br />The following exerpt from my longer document (with some alterations and deletions) details our <br />suggestions for amending the rule: <br />We recommend re-wording the rule to soften the "...connection shall be provided..."language we recommend <br />the Commission substitute the words "may be required". We suggest the Planning Department then develop a <br />set of guidelines where connectivity may be required, and a set of parameters defining circumstances where <br />connectivity is inadvisable. <br />Alternatively, if the commission prefers to retain the rigid mandate, we recommend adding additional exceptions <br />to the connectivity rule. Our suggestions for amendments appear below: <br />Proposed exception #1: Where... a proposed connection would cause the prior existing road to violate its <br />functional designation or classification (for example, cause a local residential street to become a de facto <br />collector), or would cause the existing road to exceed its design capacity or level of service as those terms are <br />used in the TPR, the Eugene code, and various Area plans, street plans, and transportation plans..... <br />Proposed Exception #2: Where... a proposed connection would violate existing standards requiring the <br />preservation of existing neighborhoods or requiring the preservation of the use of local streets for local traffic as <br />those terms are defined in the Eugene code and various Area plans, street plans, and transportation plans..... <br />Proposed Exception #3: Where... the proposed connection would hamper the development of, or would <br />unnecessarily damage the utility of, proposed or existing public parks, recreational areas, or open spaces..... <br />Proposed Exception #4: Where... a proposed connection would do more damage to the aspirational planning goals <br />of the community than the social good created by the proposed connection; alternatively, where... a proposed <br />connection would be unnecessary, redundant, or would have financial and/or social costs that exceed the <br />ascertainable community benefit of the connection <br />Proposed Exception #5: Where... the proposed connection demonstrably will create "unreasonable street <br />congestion" under Eugene Code Section 9.035(4)(d) or will violate the requirements of Eugene Code Section 9.035 <br />(4) (b) respecting the health and safety of adjoining land.... <br />Proposed Exception #6: Where... a proposed motor vehicle connection would endanger the safety of bicycle and <br />pedestrian traffic on existing roadways abutting the proposed development..... <br />In all cases where the Director does not require a connection suitable for two-way motor vehicle traffic, the <br />Department may satisfy the objective of connectivity under this section by requiring a connection limited to one- <br />way motor vehicle traffic and/or to a non-motor-vehicle pedestrian and bicycle pathway, provided such pathway is <br />constructed to allow emergency vehicle access when necessary. <br />Arcadia residents recognize that not every situation (perhaps not even our own) would result <br />in an exception being granted. We present these suggestions in the interest of a more fair <br />and functional connectivity rule, which at least attempts to respect the interests of existing <br />residents while still achieving the goals of the "purpose and Intent" section of 9.4815. <br />Re ectfully Submitted <br />s E-1 <br />~a i <br />ARCADIA NEIGHBORS <br />i <br />FAPR <br />i <br />,L-W.D. 7.8'7 21'. <br />I-4 <br />