Applicant Final Argument (6-29-16)

Eugene Hearings Official June 29, 2016 Page 2 2. The Staff is correct that, with respect to the Delta Hwy/I-105 "front yard," the maximum building setback can be measured from the sidewalk. The applicant notes that it should not be necessary to request Adjustment Review approval for the front setback standard with respect to the site's frontage along Delta Highway/I-105. As noted in EC 9.2170(4)(b), a front yard setback may be measured from a public street or from the edge of the sidewalk furthest from the curb of an internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street. The applicant concedes that neither an internal accessway nor a private drive is proposed as part of the subject development. However, Delta Highway/I-105 is not classified by the City of Eugene as a public street - the segments fronting the subject site are under the jurisdiction of Lane County and the Oregon Department of Transportation, which classify Delta Highway/I-105 as a state highway and an interstate freeway, respectively. Further, a "street", as defined in EC 9.0500, is "an improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, that is created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more lots or parcels..." The segment of Delta Highway/I-105 that fronts the subject site does not provide ingress or egress to the site or any other parcel immediately to the north or south of it. Thus, for these reasons, Delta Highway/I-105 does not satisfy the definition of a "street", which, therefore, exempts development occurring on the subject site from compliance with the front setback standard in relation to the east property line. However, if the argument presented above is not supported by the City of Eugene, the applicant requests Adjustment Review approval for the front setback standard to allow the proposed hotel to: (1) be more than 15 feet from the east property line; (2) have less than 25 percent of the "street-facing facade" within the maximum front setback stipulated in EC 9.2170(2), Table 9.2170; and (3) have vehicular parking and circulation areas between the hotel and the "street." 3. VRI complains of parking and circulation in front of the north and east facades of the building - that is, in the "front yards" of the building. Initially, there is no "front yard" on the north. As discussed above, there is a flag pole for access, not a front yard in the meaning of the code. 4. Finally, in addition to findings of compliance, and as a safety-net for compliance with the setback standards in EC 9.2170(4)(b), the Applicant requests the Hearings Official to approval three adjustments to the standards. VRI assumes that an Adjustment Review may only be granted based on a specific application at the start of the process. This is an incorrect assumption. Sometimes, as when NIMBY opponents begin picking at an application under review, the need for an adjustment, or the need for an expanded or additional adjustment, is not known until the review process is well underway. That is not a basis for denial or the basis for a "timeout" while the Applicant goes back to the starting line. Adjustments may be approved on the fly during the process if needed and warranted. Post-hearing Exhibit J, the Hearing Official's decision in Corey Adjustment Review Matter (ARA 08-02)(August 15, 2008) is an example of the Hearings Official granting an adjustment