LAWOFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />TH <br />AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />375 W. 4BILL KLOOS <br />EUGENE, OR 97401BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />TEL:541.343.8596 <br />WEB:WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />October 12, 2020 <br />Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br />Eugene Planning and Development <br />th <br />99 West 10Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />SentVia Email:NGioello@eugene-or.gov <br />Planninginfo@eugene-or.gov <br />RE: WinCo MDA 20-5; Appeal of Director Decision by Living Strong, LLC <br />Dear Nick: <br />Please accept this letter, attachments, appeal form and appeal fee as an appeal of theDirector’s <br />September 30, 2020decision, by myclient, Living Strong,LLC. My client owns propertyat the <br />northeast corner of Coburg Road and Crescent Avenue developed with apartments(The <br />McKenzie at Crescent Village). <br />Issues in this appeal. <br />Below is abrief listing of issues for the appeal. Forthe sake of brevity, this appeal and statement <br />of appeal issues incorporates the details of the issues discussed in my June 26 letter of testimony <br />in thismatter.This appeal is a subset of those issues. Unless otherwise stated in the discussion <br />of eachissue here, my client asserts that this applicationdoes not qualify for a modification. The <br />proposed developmentshould not occur until a new SR application is submitted and approved. <br />Inaddition,the proposed development is subject to a Traffic Impact Analysis review. <br />1.The Director erred in finding that the proposed modificationis consistent <br />withthefollowing conditions of the original approval. <br /> <br />Original Condition (b):Prior to approval of Phase II, the City Traffic Engineer <br />shall work with JRH Traffic Engineers in assuring that the volumes of traffic at <br />the Coburg Road ingress/egress will be satisfactorily reduced by the future <br />connection to Crescent Avenue. Other means of encouragingtraffic to Chad or <br />Crescent may need to be investigated. The connection to CrescentAvenue will <br />need to be in place prior to the completion ofPhase II. <br />TheDirector failed to address the issues raised with respect to themeaning of acompliance with <br />this condition. Theproposed modification is not consistent with Condition (b) for the reasons <br />stated in the June 26 letter. <br /> <br />