My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Petitioners Opening Brief
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2018
>
WG 18-3
>
Petitioners Opening Brief
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2019 4:05:00 PM
Creation date
12/26/2019 2:38:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
18
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
Lombard Apartments
Document Type
Appeal Docs
Document_Date
4/17/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
II <br />1 That same reasoning applies to the leasing office and maintenance <br />z building areas in this case. The city's decision harmonizes EC 9.2751(1)(b) <br />3 and EC 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1) and correctly concludes that the maintenance area <br />4 and leasing office can be included in the net density calculation because <br />5 those areas are not open to the public, but instead are spaces used <br />6 exclusively to support the residential use of the property." <br />s ER-9-11 (LUBA Rec-14-16). <br />9 b. LUBA's decision regarding parking drives and streets <br />10 <br />11 With regard to Petitioners' arguments that private streets must be excluded <br />12 from the net density calculation, LUBA rejected the argument, concluding that the <br />13 interior circulation is a "parking drive," despite finding that the interior circulation <br />14 area does not satisfy the definition of "parking drive": <br />15 "The site plan includes two parking drives that permit internal traffic <br />16 circulation from access points at Lombard Lane and River Road. EC <br />17 9.5500(l 1)(b)(2) generally prohibits through motor vehicle movement in <br />18 parking areas of multi-family developments with more than 20 units. <br />19 Lombard requested and was allowed an adjustment for the planned parking <br />20 drives that allow through motor vehicle movement. EC 9.5500(l 1)(e); EC <br />21 9.8030(8)(e). Petitioners do not challenge that adjustment. <br />zz <br />23 Petitioners argue that the internal parking circulation area constitutes a <br />24 `street' that should be excluded from the acreage used for the density <br />25 calculation under EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1), which provides that `[t]he acreage of <br />26 land considered part of the residential use shall exclude public and private <br />27 streets.' The planning commission determined that the adjustment did not <br />28 transform the parking drive into a street and concluded that the area of land <br />29 used for the parking drive area could be included in the net density <br />30 calculation. Rec[-]26. <br />31 <br />32 The parking drives are within the apartment complex and lined with <br />33 head-in parking spaces along a significant portion of their length. Rec[-] <br />34 221. The parking drives are not `created to provide ingress or egress for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.