My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant Final Argument (6-29-16)
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2016
>
WG 16-1
>
Applicant Final Argument (6-29-16)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2017 9:48:43 AM
Creation date
7/1/2016 2:51:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
16
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Eugene Towneplace Suites
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/1/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Eugene Hearings Official <br />June 29, 2016 <br />Page 11 <br />The same is true for the Greenway permit issued in Exhibit F - a permit for a residence that <br />encroached into the Greenway. WG 08-01. There the dwelling was located partially in the <br />Greenway, even though it could have been moved back out of the Greenway. The focus instead <br />was on the adequacy of the vegetation between the residence and the river. <br />The entirety of the VRI complaint relates to where the proposed use should be located. As <br />explained above, and as exemplified by the recent City decisions, that is the wrong question. <br />The relevant question under this standard is how the Applicant is proposing to treat the area <br />between the improvements and the river. VRI has not taken issue with the plans in that respect. <br />Sincerely, <br />X&" <br />Bill Kloos <br />Cc: Client <br />Michael Connors <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.