Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Accordingly, the Commission should hold that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of EC 9.724(2) (a) regarding the street, reverse the Hearings Official's decision in this regard, and deny the application. In addition to the Public Works concerns about insufficient evidence, there are two additional issues regarding the proposed street which involve the applicant's inability to commit to providing a private street. First, as discussed above, the final site plan shows that the proposed road is outside of Zone 6, i.e. the 15.8 acres. In addition, a comparison of the 1995 CUP site plans and the CIR site plan shows that the 15.8 site itself has no access to Willamette Street. The project must therefore use other parts of the cemetery for its street access. However, use of other parts of the cemetery is prohibited under the 1995 CUP. Therefore, the applicant cannot meet the approval criterion in EC 9.724.(2)(a)(2) and make a commitment to provide a private street. Second, the Technical Memorandum cited above, which was submitted as part of the record by the applicant, raised another issue regarding the street. The memorandum stated that Eugene Code 7.408 allows only one driveway access per frontage per development site. Rest Haven cemetery already has an existing driveway approach onto Willamette St. Since the proposed development site, i.e. the 15.8 acres, is currently part of the masterplan of the cemetery under the 1995 CUP, the applicant cannot make a commitment under EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) that a driveway, i.e. Cathedral Way, can connect to Willamette Street. (The Memorandum raising this issue was submitted by the applicant on June 22, 2016 as part of his final rebuttal and there was no opportunity for the opponents to address this issue). In light of the applicant's inability under the 1995 CUP to commit to providing a street, the applicant cannot make the requisite commitment under EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) and the application should be denied. Subissue regarding the street: The applicant's failure to meet the applicable private street standards and the general lack of evidence to demonstrate the function and safety of circulation, ingress and egress violate the approval requirement of EC 9.724(2)(b)(3). Accordingly, the Commission should reverse the Hearings Official's decision and deny the application. The Public Works Referral Response stated "For the reasons described above, with respect to not meeting applicable private street standards, and the general lack of information and evidence to demonstrate the function and safety of circulation, ingress and egress for residents using the proposed street, Public Works staff concludes that this criterion [EC . 9.724(2)(b)(3)] is not met. The proposal also lacks information to demonstrate compliance with applicable parking area standards from EC 9.584 and 9.589". P. 4. The Hearings Official, as noted above, addressed this issue by stating that conditions of approval can satisfy these concerns. However, at a minimum, the applicant should be required to show that the proposed street is feasible. The issue of the street exceeding maximum grade was raised at the hearing, and the applicant's representative had no solution to offer as to how the street could meet the acceptable grade. The applicant had the Public Works Referral Response prior to the hearing and knew of the problem, but had not been able to solve it. 10