My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
24_03_04_1700_Batch5_Testimony
>
OnTrack
>
MA
>
2023
>
MA 23-5
>
24_03_04_1700_Batch5_Testimony
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2024 4:02:21 PM
Creation date
3/6/2024 12:30:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MA
File Year
23
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
3/4/2024
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W. 4- AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.954.1260 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />March 4, 2024 <br />Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council <br />c/o Elana Domingo, Associate Planner <br />Eugene Planning Division <br />99 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS @LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />Re: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments <br />Eugene Files MA23-5 and CA23-3 & County File 509-PA23-05532 <br />Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors: <br />Like Teresa Bishow, I represent Kevin and Lora Journey and Action Rent -All & Events. This is <br />a longstanding local business renting its site on River Ave. The owners have purchased property <br />next door intending to relocate and expand. <br />You have excellent letters from Bishow Consulting, Attny Micheal Reeder, Attny Andree' <br />Phelps, and Schirmer Consulting. These letters point out in detail the frightening shortcomings <br />in the proposed code amendments, asking that the amendments be dropped from any decision to <br />adopt the new plan. I concur. The amendments can't be successfully defended. <br />For my part, I want to stress two points about the code amendments, which will make my client's <br />use a nonconforming use (NCU). <br />First, staff may say that all existing business may continue as NCUs. They likely will not say is <br />that a NCU is not allowed to expand, and, more significantly, that status amounts to the city <br />saying: "Please shut down or leave, eventually; you are not good enough for this neighborhood; <br />we want classier uses than yours around here." <br />Second, making any River Ave. business a NCU is flat out contrary to Envision Eugene Policy <br />3.5, Business retention and expansion: "Facilitate the retention and growth of existing <br />businesses in the community. " What findings will city planners suggest to show compliance <br />with this policy to justify the code amendments? <br />Sincerely, <br />B/11U-0Os <br />Bill Kloos <br />Cc: clients <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.