Applicant Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 23, 2015 Page 4 The "19 lot rule" is recommended for elimination due to the adoption of the Eugene Local Street Plan which incorporate (sic) a comprehensive set of requirements to address street connectivity. In general, the street connectivity standards provide an effective tool for the City to acquire the necessary right-of- way, including the appropriate alignment, as each land division application is submitted, whereas the "19 lot rule" is intended to ensure that adequate street connections are already in place. However, this provision can severely impact the ability to develop infill parcels even though many sites can demonstrate compliance with the City's new connectivity requirements. If there is interest to maintain the "19 lot rule," staff recommend that it be revised to address existing deficiencies. As Exhibit B shows, by the time the Planning Commission got to a November 8, 1999 draft code, there were discrete PUD standards for Needed Housing and General tracks, and the 19 Lot Rule was under the Needed Housing standards in its current form. Ex. B, Bates 7435. It was not in the standards for the General track. Ex. B, Bates 7431-7433. The Staff Report concurs that West Amazon meets the definition in this standard because "street" in the code is defined to include both improved and unimproved right of way. However, they are asking to find noncompliance anyway. First, Staff references the Planning Commission decision in Deerbrook. Staff Report at 9. (All the Deerbrook decisions appear as Applicant Exhibit A.) The Commission was facing a different situation in that proceeding. There the project would have developed West Amazon through the area where it is now blocked; the Commission said that being able to exit to the north and south on West Amazon would meet the standard. The Commission did not address a situation where a street was unimproved or blocked at some point in one direction after leaving the PUD site. Second, the Staff references the fire code standard for two entrances for fire vehicles. They admit this is not relevant to the 19 Lot Rule. Staff Report at 9. But they say it supports a finding of noncompliance anyway. Not so. This project will comply with the fire code by use of sprinklers unless and until a second route for fire vehicle access is found. The Staffs recommendation to find non-compliance with the 19-Lot standard is unfounded in the language of the code. In summary, the Hearing Official should find that application complies with the 19 Lot Rule, based on the plain language. He should not read language into the standard that is not there. He should not make policy on the fly about how far from the site a vehicle needs to be able to "disperse" in order to meet the standard. This is the legally correct conclusion, and it would also avoid the analysis under the Needed Housing Statute that follows below, with respect to the 19 Lot Rule. B. This project is for "Needed Housing" in the meaning of the statute, such that it gets the protections of the statute. The 19 Lot Rule may not be applied if can be interpreted to