My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2016
>
WG 16-1
>
Public Comments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 4:01:32 PM
Creation date
3/1/2018 11:24:02 AM
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
2/28/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Page 10 <br />September 6, 2016 <br />below based on the record. Therefore, the Planning Commission should affirm the Hearings <br />Official's decision. <br />3. The Hearings Official did not err in determining that the Applicant failed to <br />adequately demonstrate compliance with the tree preservation standards set <br />forth in EC 9.8840(2)(b). <br />The issue before the Hearings Official with respect to EC 9.8840(2)(b) was whether or not the <br />Applicant had adequately demonstrated that the proposed hotel had been "designed and sited to <br />preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible * * (Emphasis added). <br />The Hearings Official determined that this standard requires, at a minimum, that "the design of <br />the proposed development must at least attempt to preserve significant trees" and the Applicant <br />"must make an attempt to review the significant trees to be removed against the priority <br />characteristics for significant trees to be preserved" under EC 9.8840(2)(b)(1)-(10). The <br />Hearings Official determined that the Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with this <br />approval criterion because it "did not make any such attempt" to address EC 9.8840(2)(b) and <br />instead "merely determined what type of development specifics it wanted and proposed to <br />remove the necessary trees to accomplish the desired result." Hearings Official's Decision, p.13. <br />On appeal, the Applicant simply reiterated its same arguments below which the Hearings Official <br />rejected. Notwithstanding the Applicant's lengthy explanation in its appeal statement, the <br />Applicant's assertion that it satisfied EC 9.8840(2)(b) is based on a single claim - the trees <br />proposed for removal must be removed because of the required fire access driveway around the <br />building and the mandatory lane widths. There are several reasons why that response is <br />inadequate to address EC 9.8840(2)(b). <br />First, the Applicant did not review .the significant trees to be removed against the priority <br />characteristics for significant trees to be preserved under EC 9.8840(2)(b). The Hearings <br />Official concluded that this was a minimum requirement ("at the least") under this code <br />provision and the Applicant did not challenge that interpretation. Ironically, the Applicant's <br />appeal statement compared the trees it is proposing to preserve against the priority characteristics <br />under EC 9.8840(2)(b), but that is not what EC 9.8840(2)(b) and the Hearings Official required. <br />The Applicant was required to compare the trees it is proposing to remove against the priority <br />characteristics under EC 9.8840(2)(b). The Applicant clearly did not do so and therefore cannot <br />satisfy this minimum requirement under EC 9.8840(2)(b). <br />Second, the Applicant's claim that the removal of the significant trees along the eastern property <br />line are required due to the fire access driveway is not supported by any evidence and is <br />undermined by its own Tree Preservation Plan. At least two trees located on the southeastern <br />area of the property, a 30-inch and 36-inch cottonwood tree, are clearly located well outside the <br />fire access driveway. In fact, they are located on or east of the parking stalls that border the <br />eastern boundary of the property. At a minimum, the Applicant must point to some evidence in <br />the record to support its assertion that trees located well outside the fire access driveway must be <br />removed because of this driveway. These trees are obviously being removed to accommodate <br />the parking stalls. Since the Applicant has 36 excess parking spaces, it is obviously not necessary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.