Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 21, 2024 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Staff’s reasoning on this point is not clear. Maybe they believe that the applicant really does <br />have Middle Housing rights courtesy of state law, and they want to have a public road to connect <br />to when those rights are exercised; that is, when Middle Housing rights are exercised the city can <br />exact a public road connection through Lot 39. Maybe they believe that the 901’prohibition <br />against all development does not apply to public development. Regardless, staff want the Randy <br />Lane private road to be public. <br /> <br />This demand is addressed in detail in discussion point 3 in our August 14 second open record <br />submittal. First, Staff is not pointing to any standard that requires a public road at this location <br />when connectivity is not required. Second, this is a discretionary demand, which is outside the <br />scope of what is allowed under clear and objective standards. Third, the exactions associated <br />with the demand for more robust improvements (dedication of land and expenditure of funds) is <br />an exaction that must be justified by the City. The justification offered relates to public interest <br />items. However, exactions are only allowed in the context of discretionary applications that the <br />City may deny. The nature of an application under clear and objective standards is that it may ont <br />be denied. <br /> <br />In summary, the applicant believes it has fully responded to the issues raised in the staff’s change <br />of position it stated in its July 31 Staff Report. The July 10 Staff Report was correct in saying <br />that the streets and connectivity standard have been met or exceptions have been justified. <br /> <br />EC 9.8325(5): Lot Dimensions and Density: <br /> <br />The July 10 Staff Report at page 15 finds compliance with standards for lot dimensions, density <br />and size. The application narrative at pages 12-13 examines lot size standards for the base zone <br />and shows how the lot sizes comply either by conforming with the maximum lot size or by <br />complying with one or more of the listed exceptions in the base zone regulations. <br /> <br />The first Woodward letter, dated July 10, at page 7, takes issue with compliance with lot size <br />standards in the base zone. His focus at page 8 is on Lot 39, which is proposed for future <br />development under Middle Housing standards. His argument poses a Catch-22. It is that the <br />applicant has not shown a conceptual buildout plan because the City is prohibiting any <br />development on Lot 39. <br /> <br />The easy resolution of such a semantic argument is that the PUD standards do not trigger an <br />inquiry into lot area. This is explained in our application narrative at page 12. The narrative <br />examined compliance with lot size standards in the base zone, but that discussion is premised <br />with an explanation that the PUD standards do not ask for a demonstration of compliance with <br />lot area standards in the base zone. EC 9.8325(5) is limited to review of “applicable lot <br />dimension and density requirements for the subject zone.” The text and context of the code is <br />clear that “lot dimensions” does not encompass “lot area” or “lot size.” The entirety of <br />opponents arguments about lot size requirements are not grounded in the language of an <br />applicable standard. <br /> <br />EC 9.8325(5): Public Improvement Standards: