EWEB - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

the Applicant to make (Condition 6). By focusing on this improvement requirement, the LHVC has not considered the other improvements that the Applicant is also required to construct, i.e. Laurel Hill Drive to city standards and the realignment of Moon Mountain Drive, as required by the Hearings Official. According to Condition 6, the Applicant must construct all of these improvements before a final subdivision plat can be recorded. Privately- engineered public streets are designed to satisfy applicable street standards. This has already occurred for the Moon Mountain realignment because that improvement was reviewed and approved by the City's and ODOT's technical staffs as part of the ODOT Road Approach Permit review process. For the Laurel Hill Drive and Moon Mountain intersection improvements, those improvements will be designed to accommodate theAraffic generated by the 78 total lots in Phases 1, 2, 3 and 8 and the expected increase attributable to the development of other Valley properties. In fact, we accept Mr. Stein's representations (March 6 traffic impact analysis at 1 -229) that Laurel Hill Drive shall be "improved to City standards" to include all of the road improvements required to connect Phases 1, 2, 3 and 8 to Glenwood Boulevard. The City staff has confirmed that during the subdivision process, the Applicant would, as a normal part of that process, be required to provide engineered street plans and specifications which address and satisfy all applicable city standards. Finally, the City's street standards are usually less stringent than the requirements of the Fire Marshall, which usually demand additional improvements to accommodate the movement of large vehicles. The LHVC has not provided any evidence that this is not an accurate assessment of the relationship of the City's street standards to the requirements of the Fire Marshall. In any event, the requirements of the Fire 'Marshall will be in addition to the normal land division standards and requirements, and will be met as part of Condition 6 since they are shown on the approved drawing. This assignment of error is denied. The Hearings Official's adoption of Condition 6 includes the requirement that the Applicant design all`of the required improvement to existing and applicable city standards. 3. LHVC Appeal Issue 17: "On page 41 the decision reads . . there is substantial evidence in the record which indicates that water service is available or that provision of water service is feasible and will be available prior to need ...' Eugene Code 9.512(6)(d) is quite specific about the nature of the evidence necessary to make a finding that a service will be available prior to need. This evidence simply does not exist in the record. Therefore this finding is in error and this criteria is not satisfied." • The LHVC challenges the Hearings Official's finding that EWEB can provide water service to the development (HO Dec at 40-41) even though EWEB's representative responded to that argument and reaffirmed, in a letter, that EWEB can provide water service prior to the time that it EXHIBIT "A" - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCt,USIONS OF LAW - 12 / //5 /