Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 21, 2024 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />house or it might mean two ways to get to the frontage of the project) then it may not be applied <br />at all. ORS 197.307(4). <br /> <br />Connectivity to the north and west (EC 9.6815(2)(c)): Opponents did not take issue <br />with the applicant and staff position that an exception to connectivity to the north was justified. <br />Rather, the Woodward July 10 letter asserts, with the aid of the graphic in Exhibit A, that a <br />secondary access to the west to Hawkins Lane meeting the city 20% slope standards is possible <br />with road along the north property line. This was refuted in the applicant’s first open record <br />submittal on July 31 with the support of graphics and testimony in Exhibit B from the applicant’s <br />engineer – KPFF Engineers. KPFF “corrected” the opponents’ graphic by including the “vertical <br />curve required at top of slope,” and this more accurate design changed the slope to a <br />noncompliant 21%. The corrected graphic, from a licensed engineer, is the more reliable <br />evidence. The exception to connectivity to the north (and for secondary access if an exception <br />were needed) is justified. <br /> <br />Furthermore, the applicant does not believe that connectivity to the west to Hawkins Lane is the <br />kind of connectivity that is anticipated by the code. This site already has connectivity to Hawkins <br />Lane via Randy Lane. Opponents are calling for another connection to Hawkins Lane. It is not <br />clear which standard opponents believe requires that. Likely it is none. <br /> <br />Connectivity of Randy Lane: Public Works did an about face in their July 31 first open <br />record period comments, and Planning Staff summarized those in its July 31 Staff Report. In <br />summary, Public Works noted that the basis for the exception initially stated by the applicant for <br />not connecting Randy Lane, and initially supported by staff, was the 901’+ development <br />prohibition, and that is not an acceptable basis for an exception as stated in the code; therefore, <br />they suggested the applicant find an acceptable basis for the exception, and, in the meantime, <br />Public Works demanded the connection be made, with dedication of a more robust public road, <br />and changes to the site plan that would flow from that. Juley 31 Staff Report at 3-5. <br /> <br />The applicant responded in detail to all this in its August 14 second open record submittal. See <br />discussion point 2 at page 14. It shows that Randy Lane connectivity was exempted by the <br />topography, which precludes a connecting road that meets the city’s 20% slope limitation – <br />making the same showing that was the basis for HO findings in Round 1. This showing is based <br />on design graphics prepared by KPFF Engineers and included as Exhibit E. <br /> <br />Staff proposed conditions to require the applicant to make this exception showing in connection <br />with the final PUD submittal. The applicant is keen on making that showing here, so as to avoid <br />any protest about evidentiary issues at final PUD review without a hearing opportunity. <br /> <br />Public Road demand for Randy Lane in any event: Even without the need for <br />connectivity now, Staff want the Randy Lane private road extension to be public, with all that <br />would entail in terms of changing the site plan to show a more robust road, related <br />improvements, and changes to storm water design. Staff is direct in saying the 901’+ <br />development prohibition that applies to all development on Lot 39 may not actually prevent <br />putting a road through it in the future.