Capital Drive and surrounding streets; and failing to properly consider and/or weigh the Eugene <br />Fire Code Standards for fire apparatus access roads as authoritative reference standards. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />There was no error on part of the Hearings Official in finding compliance with EC 9.8320(7) <br />regarding an adequate public street system serving the site. The Planning Commission concurs <br />with the conclusions of the applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study and with <br />Public Works staffs assessment of that review and other information regarding the 2014 re- <br />paving of Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard. The Planning Commission also accepts the <br />memorandum by Scott Gillespie, P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager, discussing <br />the roadway conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard (Staff Report, page 35). The <br />Hearings Official properly weighed the available evidence in the record to reach her conclusion, <br />and therefore, did not err with respect to this issue. <br />Appeal Issue #25: EC 9.8320(10)(x): EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions <br />and density requirements for the subject zone. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that, "Table 9.2750 limits the maximum lot coverage for all lots to <br />50%. As the applicant acknowledges, for purposes of this calculation, lot coverage includes only <br />the non-preservation areas of each lot. Accordingly, in accordance with Table 9.2750, for those <br />lots that include preservation areas, that square footage of the preservation area must be <br />excluded in the calculation of lot coverage" (Hearings Official Decision, page 61). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred when addressing the proposed PUD's <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(10)(a), in reference to the R-1 zoning code requirement at EC <br />9.2750 Lot Coverage limiting single family detached lot coverage to 50% and by included the <br />private preservation areas on Lots 5, and 8 through 19 in total calculation of lot size. The <br />Hearings Official erred by not including a requirement that lot coverage only be calculated as a <br />percentage of the "buildable" portion of lots as a Condition of Approval or as a required note <br />on the final plans. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The Hearing Official correctly concluded that lot coverage requirements are based upon only <br />the "buildable" portion of the proposed lots (excluding preservations areas). In the interest of <br />clarity the Planning Commission hereby modifies the Hearings Official's decision to include the <br />following additional condition of approval: <br />22. The final PUD plans shall include the following note: <br />The maximum lot coverage for all lots is 50%. The square footage of any <br />preservation areas shall be excluded in the calculation of lot coverage. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission affirms the Hearings <br />Official's decision with respect to this appeal issue, as modified by condition of approval # 22. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 33 <br />