WPIanning Commission <br />FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />ON APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION: TOWNEPLACE SUITES (WG 16-1; SR 16-1; ARB 16-3) <br />1. BACKGROUND <br />On January 13, 2016, Valley Hospitality, LLC submitted three land use applications for a new hotel near <br />Valley River Center. The applications included a Site Review, Willamette Greenway Permit and an <br />Adjustment Review. The subject property is vacant, and is zoned C-2/WR/SR Community Commercial <br />with Water Resources Conservation and Site Review overlays. A portion of the site is within the <br />Willamette River Greenway. <br />Staff recommended approval of the requests to the Hearings Official based on compliance with the <br />applicable approval criteria. The initial public hearing before the Hearings Official was held on June 8, <br />2016. At the hearing, an attorney representing Valley River Inn (VRI) provided oral and written testimony <br />in opposition to the proposal. At the request of the applicant, the record was held open to allow for the <br />submittal of additional evidence and testimony. Following close of the public record, the Hearings <br />Official's decision was issued on August 5, 2016, and concluded that the proposal did not comply with <br />criteria related to street trees, stormwater quality, and tree preservation. In regards to the unchallenged <br />criteria, the Hearings Official noted that he adopted and incorporated the findings in the staff report <br />(which includes seven conditions of approval unrelated to the appeal issues). <br />In response to the Hearings Official's denial, Bill Kloos, on behalf of the applicant, filed an appeal on <br />August 22, 2016. <br />The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on this appeal on September 6, 2016, and <br />commenced deliberations on September 12, 2016. On September 19, 2016, action was taken to adopt <br />a Final Order reversing the Hearings Official's decision to deny the subject applications. The Final Order <br />of the Eugene Planning Commission regarding this appeal is based on the record, and limited to the <br />issues raised in the record that are set out in appellants' written appeal statement, in accordance with <br />applicable procedural requirements of the Eugene Code (EC). <br />II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />As discussed below, the Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the appellant's <br />assignments of error, and has voted to reverse the Hearings Official's denial of the Towneplace Suites <br />applications (WG 16-1; SR 16-1; ARB 16-3). <br />Appeal Issue #1: Street Tree Requirements <br />Evidence in the Record: The opponent contends that statements made by staff in its September 6, 2016 <br />memo and by the appellant in its appeal statement constitute new evidence. First, the opponent alleges <br />that the appellant's statement that it could add additional trees in order to comply with the street tree <br />1 <br />