Issues #5 and #6: <br /> <br />5: Whether Randy Lane stub, which cannot connect, needs to be “public” vs “private road?” <br />6: Whether City has justified exacting the public road dedication under Nollan and Dolan? <br /> <br />Up to and through the hearing, Public Works was OK with the Randy Lane stub being a private <br />street, like the other two private streets in the PUD. <br /> <br />Three weeks after the hearing Public Works changed course and requested the stub be a <br />“public” street with 40’ ROW dedication and more improvements. <br /> <br />Applicant showed there is no need for public road status because: <br /> <br />• There is no potential for connecting the road through to the east. <br /> <br />• It is undisputed that the topography is too steep for city street standards - <20% slope. <br /> <br />• City is OK with the other two streets being private and they will serve more lots: <br /> <br />• Compare the number of dwellings served by each street: <br /> <br />o Randy Lane Extension: 7 Lots Total: 30,31,33, 34,35,36,37. <br />o Stonehedge Court: 9 Lots Total: 1,2,6,7,11,12,15,16,17. <br />o Stonehedge Way: 21 Lots Total: <br /> 3,4,5,8,9,10,13,14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32. <br /> <br />• There is no logical argument that the road will have a number of trips that triggers need <br />for public road. <br />o 7 Lots with SFD: 7x9.43 ADT = 66 ADT <br />o 7 Lots with Quadplexes: 7x4x7.20 ADT = 202 ADT <br /> <br />• “Eugene Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets 1999”: <br /><250 ADT = “Access Lane” with 40’ ROW. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 19 of 43