Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

D107.1 states that where the number of one and two-family dwellings exceed 30, there shall be provided two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. The referral from Eugene- Springfield Fire states that they do not support the proposed development at this time until a fire apparatus access road meeting the requirements of EFC Appendix D, Section D104.3 and D107.1 is provided. Based on the above findings above, this criterion is not met. As an aside, staff notes that the "19-Lot Rule" is not included in the PUD General Criteria. That is, the applicant could have reverted to applying the General Criteria when staff raised concerns in regard to this standard, yet they chose to proceed under the Needed Housing criteria anyway. Hearings Official Findings: Mr. Kloos makes two arguments in response to the staff decision. First, he argues that EC 9.8325(6)(c) can be applied and met according to its terms if West Amazon is found to meet the definition of a "street" as defined in EC 9.0050. According to this argument, once it is conceded that West Amazon is a street, then the requirement of EC 9.8325(6)(c) to "disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street" is met. He notes that nothing in the legislative history surrounding the adoption of the 19 lot standard requires a different result. Staff and the city attorney respond that even though West Amazon may technically fit the definition of a "street," the evidence in the record that the right of way is not improved, is blocked by a locked gate, and that prior land use decisions show that the section of West Amazon at issue will likely never be used as a street suitable for vehicular traffic, show that traffic cannot be dispersed in that direction to meet the standard. Second, Mr. Kloos argues that the holding in the Group 8 LLC case requires that if the 19 lot rule can be applied in a way that allows the proposal, then it must be applied in that manner. In other words, once the type of housing applied for is determined to be "needed housing" all the clear and objective standards that apply may only do so in a way that approves development. Mr. Kloos likens the 19 lot standard to the city's former stormwater standard that LUBA found to be impossible to comply with in Homebuilders of Lane County v. City of Eugene. Staff and the city attorney respond that the 19 lot rule is not impossible to comply with because other applicants in other locations can meet the standard. That factual circumstance is different than the stormwater standard at issue in the Homebuilders case. They further respond that neither ORS 197.307 nor Goal 10 go so far as to require an approval for a needed housing application without regard to whether the applicant meets the clear and objective approval standards. The Hearings Official agrees with staff and the city attorney. As an initial matter, I find that EC 9.8325(6)(c) is a clear and objective standard. It represents a simple counting exercise and a determination of whether more than one point of ingress and egress is available to disperse motor vehicle traffic. The standard does not represent a "subjective, value laden analyses that are designed to balance or mitigate impacts." Rogue Valley Assoc. of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 35 Or LUBA 139, 158, aff'd 158 Or App 1 (1999). It is also my conclusion that the necessity to Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13) 14