street system fails to conform to city standards and notes many enforcement-related issues. " <br />These enforcement-related issues directly affect safety and emergency access and must be <br />considered in order to ensure safe and adequate access. <br />6. The Hearings Official ,failed to properly consider and/or weigh the. Eugene Fire Code <br />Standards for fire apparatus access roads as authoritative reference standards, even if not explicit <br />approval criteria. <br /> <br />Assignments of Error, Criterion 10 <br />EC 9.8320(10)(a): EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements <br />for the subject zone. <br />Appeal Issue #25: The Hearings Official erred on Page 61 of her Decision wherein she addressed <br />the proposed PUD's compliance with Criterion 10 (a) and she stated, in reference to the R-1 <br />zoning code requirement at EC 9.2750 Lot Coverage limiting single family detached lot <br />coverage to 50% "As the applicant acknowledges, for purpose of this calculation, lot coverage <br />includes only the non preservation areas of each lot. " The language is meant as a clarification <br />of the calculation after the Response Committee questioned this calculation at the 3/7/18 Public <br />Hearing and in its Response Document on Pages 130-131. <br />The Committee's concern was (and still is) that for lots with individual tax lot preservation areas, <br />if the lot coverage calculation is based on the lot's entire square footage (including individual tax <br />lot preservation areas), allowable lot coverage per code would provide for actual coverage on the <br />buildable portion of the lot that far exceeds the code's 50% maximum. In fact, if this flawed <br />methodology is used to determine allowable lot coverage for Lot 5 and Lots 8-19, the Response <br />Committee calculates that the actual average allowable lot coverage will be almost 90%. <br />Undoubtedly, it is imperative that clarification of this issue is irrefutable and cannot be <br />challenged in the future by individual lot owners seeking to build large homes. <br />Applicant's consultant also sought to clarify this calculation in her 3/21/18 letter to the Hearings <br />Official in which she stated on Page 3 under Miscellaneous "Where we discuss lot coverage for <br />purposes of calculation, we intended it to mean the non preservation area of the lots. " <br />However, the Hearings Official erred in that she did not include the requirement that lot coverage <br />only be calculated as a percentage of the "buildable" portion of lots (which is a departure from <br />EC 9.2750 Lot Coverage) as a Condition of Approval or as a required note on the final plans. <br />Herein, the Hearings Official is relying on a future act to satisfy a current condition of approval. <br />EC 9.8320 (10) (f) Public Access Required <br />(1) Except as otherwise provided in this land use code, no building or structure shall be erected <br />or altered except on a lot fronting or abutting on a public street or having access to a public street <br />27 <br />