Applicant Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 23, 2015 Page 2 not to the slower, more expensive serial partition process. The Hearing Official should decline to apply the 19 Lot Rule for the same reason LUBA struck down the storm standard in the code in the Home Builders review of this code. If so, may the City apply the 30 foot landscape buffer setback to this project? No. The plain language of this standard makes it a prohibition of development in the guise of a clear and objective standard. The Hearing Official should refuse to apply this standard for the same reason LUBA struck down the stormwater standard in the Home Builders case. If the standard has to be interpreted so as not be absurd, as the staff suggests, then it is too discretionary to be applied, as explained in Home Builders. The applicant concurs with the explanation in the November 12 Staff memorandum for the reasons why Vivian Drive should not be improved or paved. 1. Summary of Key facts related to legal issues: We refer the Hearing Official to the November 12 post-hearing letter and materials from Branch Engineering. These materials included a revised contour map to correct the error flagged by Mr. Williamson. A revised site plan is also included to demonstrate how the project can be accommodated while respecting the 20% slope limitation on the revised contour map. II. Legal issues: A. The 19 Lot Rule: This project complies with the plain language of the 19 Lot Rule, which only requires dispersal, not dispersal to some unstated destination in the City. The standard is: Standard EC 9.56875(c): The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. Although the bulk of the argument has been about whether this standard may be applied under the Needed Housing Statute, the preliminary question is whether the application meets this standard, if it is applied according to its terms. If the answer is "yes," then we do not need to ask how the Needed Housing Statute applies to this issue. The applicant believes this proposal is consistent with standard. The starting point for the meaning of the standard is its plain text. If there is a need to interpret one then goes to the text, context, and legislative history, if available.