My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant Final Argument (6-29-16)
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2016
>
WG 16-1
>
Applicant Final Argument (6-29-16)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2017 9:48:43 AM
Creation date
7/1/2016 2:51:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
16
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Eugene Towneplace Suites
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/1/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.343.8596 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />June 29, 2016 <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />c/o Eugene Permit and Information Center <br />99 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />Re: Applicant's Final Argument (SR 16-1; WG 16-1; ARB 16-3) <br />Dear Mr. Wilson: <br />Please accept this filing as the Applicant's Final Argument. It is based on the record and the <br />materials submitted as of June 15. <br />This application should be approved, as recommended by the Staff. The only opposition is from <br />the adjacent competing hotel - the Valley River Inn (VRI). Its economic motives are obvious, <br />but none of its substantive arguments is a competent basis for denial. <br />Opponent's issues are listed in the June 8 letter from Michael Connors. We organize this <br />argument to respond to the issues as listed in that letter. In addition to the final application <br />materials and the Staff Report, we reference here the Applicant's June 15 materials, which are <br />listed as 14 items in the MSS INC transmittal letter of that date post hearing Exhibits A <br />through K. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 1: EC 9.2170(4)(b) - Setbacks. <br />1. VRI alleges that the Valley River Drive frontage of the access is a "front yard" for <br />purposes of this standard, and the proposal must honor the 15-foot front yard setback in the <br />access strip. This is a flag pole lot. VRI asks the City to read the code as requiring building <br />placement in the flag pole. If this were the correct reading of the standard, it would be a standard <br />that is impossible for any development proposal to meet. <br />The Staff Report got it right, by not treating the flag pole as having a "front yard" for purposes of <br />building location standards. The City considers the flag pole as an access corridor, not a <br />buildable part of the lot. This is apparent from the definition of "Flag Lot" in the code as EC <br />9.0500: <br />"Flag Lot. A lot located behind another lot except for a narrow portion extending <br />to the public street which is suitable for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access. <br />The "flag pole" of a flag lot is the access corridor to the buildable "flag portion" <br />of the lot. (See Figure 9.2775(2) Residential Flag Lot Description.)" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.