"Thank you for your application for a three-parcel partition of the Staff Partition <br />Tract under the clear and objective partition standards of EC 9.8220. However, <br />under EC 9.8210(2), your application must include adjacent property in the same <br />ownership, which includes the balance of the property owned by Tom and <br />Cynthia Dreyer. When the adjacent land in the same ownership is included, the <br />total acreage is over four acres, it includes land above the 900 feet elevation, and <br />it also includes land that exceeds 20% slope. Therefore, if you want land use <br />approval to divide this property for development, the provisions of the Planned <br />Unit Development overlay zone at EC 9.8305(1) require that you do so through <br />the Planned Unit Development process of EC 9.8300 et seq. You have the option <br />of applying for review under the General standards of EC 9.8320, which allow the <br />City Hearing Official to approve or deny the application largely in her discretion. <br />Or you may apply for review under the Needed Housing standards of EC 9.8325, <br />which are clear and objective, but under which no PUD on this site can be <br />approved due to the slopes exceeding 20%. The part of your development site <br />that is 20% slope or less can't be reached without grading slopes that may not be <br />graded under EC 9.8325(5). We look forward to reviewing your PUD <br />application." <br />3. Even if the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Parcel could be considered ala carte, a partition <br />application cannot meet the clear and objective standards stated in EC 9.8220. <br />If the Hearing Official entertains the Staff Partition Parcel strategy as an avenue for the City to <br />comply with the statute despite the discussion in item 2 above, then the staff has the burden of <br />showing that a partition of the 1.48-acre site under EC 9.8220 can be done with a certainty. Staff <br />has not done that and it can't be done - the required dots in the code can't be connected. <br />(a) A partition must be on a "legal lot," and staff has not shown this tract is a legal <br />lot. <br />EC 9.8210(3) requires: "The lot proposed to be divided in the partition application is a legal lot." <br />Staff assumes that the 1.48 acres is a legal lot. They have not proven that. The applicant has <br />explained the dubious legal lot pedigree of this tract standing alone in the discussion above. <br />(b) A partition can't prove up on the maximum lot size of 13,500 sq. ft. absent <br />discretionary relief. <br />EC 9.8220(2) invokes the lot standards of EC 9.2760, and the standards in EC 9.2760 Table set a <br />13,500 sq ft maximum lot size in the R-1 zone. At 1.48 acres, one or more of the partition lots <br />cannot meet this standard and would require discretionary relief to approve. <br />(c) A partition can't meet the street connectivity standards in EC 9.6880(2) absent <br />discretionary relief. <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />