According to opponents, the access from River Road and the internal circulation area is a <br />way that allows for ingress and egress of vehicular traffic. The applicant responds that the areas <br />are not streets but driveways. EC 9.0500 defines “driveway” as: <br />“The area located outside of the public right-of-way that abuts the access <br />connection and allows for vehicles to move to or from a development site.* * *” <br /> The staff memorandum of July 9, 2018 explains that the areas are “parking drives.” EC <br />9.550(11)(b) provides that “\[d\]riveways and parking drives are private roadways for projects or <br />portions of projects not served by streets.” The EC clearly treats driveways and parking drives as <br />separate and distinct things from streets. I agree with the applicant and staff that the parking drives <br />do not have to be subtracted from the net density calculation. <br /> Opponents also argue that the leasing office and maintenance building must be subtracted <br />from the net density calculation because they are “other public facilities” that are not “reserved the <br />exclusive use of the residents in the development.” The staff memorandum of July 9, 2018 explains <br />that: <br />“Both the EC definition, and EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1), use the specific language <br />‘public facilities.’ The provision does not include ‘leasing offices.’ ‘Public <br />facilities’ are not defined in EC 9.0500. However, ‘public facility projects’ are <br />defined in the Metro Plan. Those definitions contemplate above-ground physical <br />structures such as water reservoirs, pump stations, and drainage or detention <br />ponds. The leasing office does not become a public facility simply because it <br />might be used by public entities, and therefore need not be excluded from the <br />calculation. Staff also believes it is reasonable to expect that the leasing office <br />will be for the use of residents who wish to reside at the development, therefore <br />meeting the requirements of EC 9.2751 to be included as part of the net density <br />calculation.”Id. at 4-5. <br /> I agree with staff that the leasing office is not a public facility that must be excluded from <br />the net density calculation. The same reasoning is applicable to the maintenance building – it is <br />hardly something that would be open to the public. <br /> Finally, opponents argue that the open space area proposed for the eastern area of the <br />property must be excluded from the net density calculation. This argument is difficult to follow. <br />Apparently, opponents believe that areas within the Willamette Greenway must be excluded, but <br />the entire site is within the Willamette Greenway. Furthermore, the open space area is not open to <br />the public so it would seem to fall squarely within the category of common open space for the <br />exclusive use of the residents in EC 9.2751(1)(b). The application complies with EC 9.8445(4)(a). <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 15 <br /> <br />