Page 2 <br />June 22, 2016 <br />those questions and concerns in its June 15 submittal, the Applicant dumped a large volume of <br />documents into the record without any explanation of which issues those documents address and <br />why the Applicant believes they resolve those issues. The Applicant appears to have taken this <br />approach so it can wait until its closing argument to explain why and how these documents <br />address these issues and prevent Valley River Inn from responding. While the Applicant may be <br />entitled to take this approach, it does so at its own risk. The closing argument is limited to <br />argument only and the Applicant cannot use it to explain or clarify any of these supplemental <br />document because those statements would constitute new evidence. To the extent the Applicant <br />intends to use the closing argument to explain or expound upon these documents, Valley River <br />Inn will strenuously object to such statements as new evidence and move to have them <br />precluded. <br />B. Substantive Issues. <br />1. EC 9.2170(4)(b) - Setbacks. <br />Valley River Inn asserted that the Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the setback <br />requirements set forth in Eugene Code ("EC") 9.2170(4)(b) with respect to both the north and <br />east facade. The Applicant's supplemental submittal does not resolve either issue. <br />As explained in our June 8 letter and testimony, the north facade does not comply with EC <br />9.2170(4)(b)(2) and 9.2170(4)(b)(4) because the Applicant erroneously concluded that the <br />property only has frontage along Delta Highway/I-105. A Front Lot Line is defined as "A lot <br />line abutting a public street or in cases of private streets or access easements, the front lot line <br />shall be considered to be the boundary of the private street or access easement." EC 9.0500. A <br />Front Yard Setback is defined as "An area extending between lot lines that intersect a street lot <br />line, from a front lot line to a minimum depth required by zone standards." Based on these <br />definitions, there is no question that the north facade is subject to the front yard setback <br />requirements because the property has frontage along Valley River Drive. <br />It is also clear from EC 9.2170 that properties can have multiple frontages. EC 9.2170(4)(b)(5) <br />specifically addresses "Buildings having frontage on more than one street." Therefore, the <br />Applicant must demonstrate that both the north and east facade satisfy the front yard setback <br />requirements because both the north and east property boundaries have frontage along a public <br />street. <br />The north facade does not comply with either EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2) or (b)(4). A minimum of 25% <br />of the facade is not within the front yard setback as required by EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2). The <br />Applicant is proposing vehicular parking and circulation between Valley River Drive and the <br />north facade, which is prohibited by EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2). The Applicant did not request an <br />adjustment for either of these noncompliant aspects of the development. <br />Nor has the Applicant demonstrated that the east facade complies with either EC <br />9.2170(4)(b)(2) and (b)(4). The Applicant's reliance on the sidewalk as an "internal accessway" <br />is flawed because it does not meet the definition of an internal accessway. An "Internal <br />Accessway" must "have at least one travel lane, curbs, and sidewalks (minimum Win width) on <br />