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
3 <br />1 the leasing office and maintenance shed from the "net density" calculation. <br />z Because LUBA's decision affirmed the City's interpretation that runs contrary to <br />3 the plain meaning and context of the terms in the Eugene Code, LUBA's decision <br />4 is incorrect and unlawful in substance. <br />5 Next, under EC 9.2751(1)(b), "streets" must be excluded from the "net <br />6 density" calculation. The paved interior circulation areas of the apartment <br />7 complex fall squarely within the definition of "street," not the definition of <br />s "parking drive." The definition of "street" allows for through movement to <br />9 additional lots and parcels, and the definition of "parking drive" does not allow for <br />1o through movement to other lots and parcels for multi-family housing in excess of <br />11 20 dwelling units. The apartment complex at issue contains 94 dwelling units. <br />12 The applicant sought an adjustment to allow through motor vehicle movement via <br />13 Lombard Lane (in addition to the access via River Road). By allowing through <br />14 access to additional other lots and parcels, the applicant has effectively created a <br />15 "street," which must be excluded from the "net density" calculation. Because <br />16 LUBA's decision affirmed the City's interpretation that runs contrary to the plain <br />17 meaning of the terms in the Eugene Code, LUBA's decision is incorrect and <br />18 unlawful in substance. <br />19 <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.