Appeal Documents - Laserfiche WebLink

The Hearings Official mischaracterizes opponents' argument, stating that "all of the paved area" should be excluded. Opponents did not make that argument but argued that the paved circulation areas are streets under the code's definition of streets. Furthermore, opponents did argue that the leasing office, maintenance building, and the open space proposed for the eastern portion of the property should be excluded from the density calculation because these areas are not for the exclusive use of the residents in the development. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based on substantial evidence in determining that parking drives do not have to be subtracted from the net density. The circulation area falls squarely within the definition of streets. The Hearings Official further misconstrues EC 9.2751 and opponents' argument. The reason the leasing office, maintenance building, and open space areas must be excluded is that they are not for the exclusive use of the residents of the development. The notion that opponents are arguing that these areas are public facilities misconstrues opponents' argument. Simply put, a leasing office is open to the public and not for the exclusive use off the residents. The same is true of the The Hearings Official again misconstrues opponents' argument by alleging that the Willamette Greenway is on the entire site, and, therefore, the opponents' argument must fail. The point is that the Greenway area that is designated open space is wholly within an area that is open to the public, not just the residents of the development. There is nothing that separates the public area from the private area. Any member of the public will be able to utilize this area, not just residents of the development. Therefore, it is not for the exclusive use of the residents and must be excluded. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to density calculations raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.8445(4)(fl(2), EC 7.420(3)(1), and EC 9.6780 The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not supported by substantial evidence in concluding that EC 9.8445(4)(f)(2), EC 7.420(3 ))(1), and EC 9.6780. The proposal does not provide triangular visual clearance on the corners of Lombard and Fir Lane. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.8445(4)(f)(2), EC 7.420(3 ))(1), and EC 9.6780 raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.6815(2)(f) The Hearings Official misconstrued EC 9.6815(2)(f) and made findings not based on substantial evidence because the phrase "not improved to city standards and the street 4