<br /> <br /> 17 <br /> <br /> <br />(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction of all <br />existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. The proposed <br />development shall also include street connections to any streets that abut, are <br />adjacent to, or terminate at the development site. <br /> <br />(h) For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective <br />approval criteria, exceptions to street connectivity standards may be granted if one <br />of the following conditions exists: <br />1. Existing building(s) on the development site or on land abutting the <br />development site and under separate ownership obstruct the extension of the <br />planned street. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “building” is defined as a <br />structure designed and used as a place of occupancy. For the purposes of this <br />subparagraph, “building” does not include a shed, carport, detached garage, <br />accessory building, or other structure designed and used solely for storage or <br />shelter; <br />2. Existing slopes would result in a street grade exceeding current adopted <br />street design standards when measured along the centerline of the proposed <br />streets to the existing grade of the subdivision boundary or abutting property <br />under separate ownership; <br />3. Provision of public street connection would require dedication of 25 <br />percent or more of the total development site area; <br />4. Abutting residential land cannot be further divided under current <br />development standards. <br /> <br />The applicant initially had requested an exception to the street connectivity requirements, which <br />otherwise required an extension to connect the two sections of Randy Lane (see Attachments A and <br />B for a Vicinity Map and Reduced Site Plan). The applicant based this request on the location of the <br />section of Randy Lane above the 901-foot elevation and not on one of the exceptions identified in <br />EC 9.6815(2)(h). <br /> <br />In the Staff Memorandum dated July 31, 2024, submitted after the hearing and during the first open <br />record period, staff recommended a condition requiring either that the applicant submit updated <br />application materials to demonstrate an exception is warranted under one of the permitted <br />exception bases in EC 9.6815(2)(h) or that the applicant request an Adjustment Review under EC <br />9.6815(2)(i). Instead of either of these alternatives, the Hearings Official determined the applicant <br />asserted its right to amend the application “on the fly” by arguing that “the applicant is also entitled <br />to amend the proposal, including with modifications and additional evidence, if that is what is <br />needed for approval. See generally ORS 197.522.” She found that the applicant submitted new <br />evidence after the record was closed, amending its application to add a request for an exception to <br />EC 9.6815(8) based on slopes. She found that while ORS 197.522 may allow the applicant to amend <br />its application, it does not do so at the expense of the required public hearing process. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official determined that to the extent the applicant wishes to invoke ORS 197.522, on <br />appeal that statutory process would permit the applicant to amend the application and <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 19 of 159