Page 2 <br />June 8, 2016 <br />Community Development Department." Regardless of this guidance, the requirements and <br />restrictions set forth in EC 9.2170(4)(b) clearly apply to the north facade. <br />The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the north facade complies with EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2). EC <br />9.2170(4)(b)(2) requires "a minimum of 25% of all street facing fagades must be within the <br />specified maximum front yard setback, or, orientation to an internal accessway, private drive, or <br />shopping street." (Emphasis added). No portion of the north facade is within the front yard <br />setback or internal accessway. <br />With respect to the east facade facing Delta Highway/I-105, the Applicant asserts that it <br />complies with EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2) based on its proximity to the "new sidewalk that parallels an <br />internal accessway" but it failed to demonstrate that this sidewalk satisfies the definition of an <br />internal accessway. An "Internal Accessway" must "have at least one travel lane, curbs, and <br />sidewalks (minimum 8' in width) on both sides of the accessway." EC 9.2175(3)(a). The parking <br />area does not qualify under this definition because it does not have 8-foot sidewalks on both <br />sides. <br />The Applicant also failed to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.2170(4)(b)(4). EC <br />9.2170(4)(b)(4) provides that "Vehicular parking and circulation is not permitted in between the <br />street and the portion of the building that is used to comply with this subsection." The Applicant <br />acknowledges that the parking proposed between the hotel and Delta Highway/I-5 does not <br />comply with this standard, and therefore requested an adjustment under EC 9.8030(4). However, <br />adjustments to the setback requirements are limited to "the minimum and maximum front yard <br />setbacks" and therefore this particular standard is not subject to an adjustment.' EC <br />9.2170(4)(e). Even if it was subject to an adjustment, the Applicant addressed the wrong <br />adjustment criteria.2 Finally, the Applicant is proposing vehicular parking and circulation <br />between the north facade and Valley River Drive in violation of this restriction and did not even <br />request an adjustment for this noncompliant portion of the proposal. <br />2. EC 9.2170(5) - Landscaping. <br />The Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the street tree requirements set forth in EC <br />9.2170(5)(d). EC 9.2170(5)(d) imposes requirements for street frontage trees. The Applicant <br />asserts that it is not required to comply with this requirement because "[w]hile access to the site <br />is gained from Valley River Drive via a narrow, 26-foot wide strip of property, the developable <br />portion of the site does not have street frontage that would allow for installation of street trees." <br />There are two problems with the Applicant's position. First, the mere fact that the Applicant <br />does not believe the Valley River Drive frontage would allow for street trees is not a legitimate <br />' EC 9.8020 provides that "Adjustment review is available only where this land use code <br />provides that a specific standard may be adjusted." The Eugene Code does not provide for an <br />adjustment to this particular standard. <br />2 EC 9.2170(4)(e) provides that the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks may be adjusted <br />based on criteria at EC 9.8030(2). The Applicant addressed EC 9.8030(4), not EC 9.8030(2). <br />