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 />The Planning Commission finds that the applicant initially requested an exception to the street <br />connectivity requirements of subsection (2)(b) above, which would otherwise require an extension <br />to connect the two existing sections of Randy Lane as a public street though the subject site. The <br />applicant requested an exception to the requirement to build the portion of Randy Lane that <br />would have been constructed above 901-foot elevation to connect through the site; however, the <br />applicant's request was not based on one of the applicable codified exceptions identified in EC <br />9.6815(2)(h). <br />In the Staff Memorandum dated July 31, 2024, submitted after the public hearing before the <br />Hearings Official and during the first open record period, staff recommended a condition of <br />approval requiring either that the applicant submit updated application materials to demonstrate <br />an exception is warranted under one of the permitted exception bases in EC 9.6815(2)(h) or that <br />the applicant request an Adjustment Review under EC 9.6815(2)(i). <br />Instead of imposing one of the alternative conditions proposed by staff, the Hearings Official <br />determined the applicant asserted its right to amend the application "on the fly" by arguing that <br />"the applicant is also entitled to amend the proposal, including with modifications and additional <br />evidence, if that is what is needed for approval. See generally ORS 197.522." She found that the <br />applicant had submitted new evidence after the record was closed, by amending its application to <br />add a request for an exception to EC 9.6815(8) based on slopes. She also found that while ORS <br />197.522 may allow the applicant to amend its application, it does not do so at the expense of the <br />required public hearing process. <br />The Hearings Official determined that to the extent the applicant wishes to invoke ORS 197.522, <br />on appeal that statutory process would permit the applicant to amend the application and <br />demonstrate compliance with the EC 9.6815(2)(h) exceptions, while also providing both the City <br />and the public an opportunity to review and evaluate the evidence. <br />Summary of Applicant's Argument <br />The applicant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by rejecting their August 14, 2024, evidence <br />rebutting Public Works first open record evidence (dated July 31, 2024) that indicated the <br />applicant had not justified an exception under EC 9.6815(2)(h) to the requirement to connect the <br />proposed extension of Randy Lane to the existing terminus of Randy Lane to the east of the <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3r1 Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 19 <br />