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 3 <br />review that was not specifically applied for in the original application. The Hearings Official <br />should take the same approach here. <br />Requested adjustments to front setback standards: As permitted by EC 9.2170(4)(e), the <br />applicant requests Adjustment Review approval in response to EC 9.2170(4)(b)(4); specifically, <br />assuming that Valley River Drive is a front yard, to allow the proposed hotel to be set back from <br />the front property line along Valley River Drive by more than 15 feet; to allow less than 25 <br />percent of the hotel's "street-facing" facade to be located within the Maximum Front Setback; <br />and to allow vehicular parking and circulation to be located between the proposed hotel and <br />Valley River Drive. Each of these is an element of the setback standard described in EC <br />9.2170(4)(b), and, therefore, each is eligible for Adjustment Review pursuant to EC <br />9.2170(4)(e). As noted in EC 9.2170(4)(e), only EC 9.2170(4)(a) is ineligible for Adjustment <br />Review. <br />As separate narrative supporting these and the other adjustments being requested is being <br />supplied under a separate cover from Plannext. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 2: EC 9.2170(5) - Landscaping <br />VRI alleges failure to comply with the street tree requirements of EC 9.2170(5)(d), which <br />invokes: "Street Trees. Street tree requirements are specified in EC 7.280 Street Tree Program - <br />Policies, Standards, Procedure." <br />VRI has not explained why this code language requires planting of trees in improved flag pole at <br />Valley River Drive or along Delta Hwy./I-105 frontage. EC 7.280 has a trigger. The trigger is <br />not pulled unless the development proposal includes creating a street. EC 7.280(1) says: <br />"7.280 Street Tree Program - Policy, Standards, Procedure. <br />(1) Policy. In order to create attractive and healthy neighborhood <br />environments, no approval shall be granted for a development that involves the <br />creation of a street unless the applicant has submitted and received approval of a <br />street tree plan that ensures street trees will be planted and established in <br />accordance with the standards and procedures provided for in this section and the <br />adopted policies of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Street trees shall be <br />planted in accordance with the approved street tree plan as each lot or area is <br />developed, and shall be required on streets that abut the development as well as <br />on new streets within the development site." [emphasis added] <br />On the face of this language, there is no basis for alleging failure to plant street trees. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 3: EC 9.2170(10) - Underground Utilities <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.