Planning Commission Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

existing driving surface of Lombard Street does not appear "inadequate." In this context, inadequate driving surface means nearly impassable, such as would exist at the proposed northern terminus of the Lombard Street extension. Furthermore, in regards to EC 9.6815(2)(f), "where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate diving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier." In the "Staff Response to Public Comments," an attachment to the June 20, 2018 Staff Report to the Hearings Official and included in the application file for reference, City of Eugene Public Works Engineering staff explain that "inadequate" would equate to nearly impassable or dangerous conditions. The Planning Commission also notes that temporary bollards on Lombard Street would prohibit access, and are not consistent with EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets. The street connectivity standards are established to ensure that streets can accommodate emergency vehicles and create interconnections to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for efficient utility and emergency services, and provide for more even dispersal of traffic. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #8: The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.5500(7), (13), and (14). Hearings Official's Decision The Needed Housing Site Review criterion at EC 9.8445(2) states: For a proposal for multiple family developments, the proposal complies with the standards contained in EC 9.5500 Multiple Family Standards. On pages 17-18, the Hearings Official found that the subject standards concerning building articulation (EC 9.5500(7)), on-site pedestrian circulation (EC 9.5500(13)), and recycling and garbage areas (EC 9.5500(14)) are satisfied or can be satisfied through the proposed conditions of approval (Decision of the Hearings Official, Conditions 1 and 2). Summary of Appellants' Argument Appellants state that the Hearings Official's allegations of adequacy concerning the multiple- family development standards at EC 9.5500(7), (13), and (14) are generalized and fail to explain how compliance with the subject criteria is feasible. Planning Commission's Determination The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that EC 9.5500(7), (13), and (14) standards are satisfied or can be satisfied through the proposed conditions of approval. Concerning EC 9.5500(7) Building Articulation, the Planning Commission believes that the Applicant's site plans demonstrate conceptual compliance with the standard above, but understands that future design changes may occur due to conditions assuming the application is approved. To allow some flexibility in design, and to ensure that the Applicant complies with the standard above, the Hearings Official correctly included the following Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 11