My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
D-3 November 11 2013 HO Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
D-3 November 11 2013 HO Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:43 PM
Creation date
11/26/2013 3:57:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Decision Document
Document_Date
11/26/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
Willamette River, which is located more than 200 feet east of the subject property. As <br />discussed at EC 9.8320(4), the PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment and includes tree preservation and additional tree planting; those findings are <br />incorporated by reference. <br /> <br />Based on these findings, the proposed PUD will comply with the applicable criterion. <br /> <br /> Opponent Arguments <br /> <br />The neighbors mostly blended arguments under this criterion with compatibility arguments <br />under EC 9.8320(13). However, the following arguments seem to be directed at EC 9.8320(12): <br /> <br />The proposed PUD more than doubles the amount of traffic on Oakleigh Lane. PT-1, PT- <br /> <br />2 and PT-4. <br />Up to 47 cars will be leaving the PUD every morning making noise and shining headlights <br /> <br />into neighboring homes. PT-2 <br />Visitors coming to the PUD will bring traffic impacts. <br /> <br />More than 100 new residents will be living in the PUD. PT-2. <br /> <br />At the October 2, 2013 hearing some neighbors stated that building the development <br /> <br />would reduce wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />meaningless as a standard and <br />-32. <br /> <br /> Hearing Official Conclusions <br /> <br />The Hearings Official <br />findings by this reference consistent with the findings set forth below. <br /> <br />As an initial matter, the Hearings Official <br />(12). I agree with the applicant, that if the <br />City Council had intended to impose a different standard it could have done so. ORS 174.010. <br />The Hearings Official agrees that requiring a PUD to have minimal impacts is a very subjective <br />standard that is difficult to implement, but EC 9.8320(12) says what is says. <br /> <br />As to stormwater impacts, the application has already been found to comply with EC 9.8320(6 <br />& 9) which regulate the treatment and discharge of stormwater from the subject property. The <br />findings for those sections is adopted here by this reference. The record shows that the <br />infiltration and treatment of stormwater will allow the applicant to mimic pre-development <br />levels after the PUD is built, which means no net increase in stormwater impacts should be <br />reasonably anticipated for the City open space to the east. That constitutes a minimal impact. <br /> <br />As to noise, although fears were voiced about noise coming from the PUD residents and their <br />cars, no real evidence was submitted that these impacts will be of such volume as to be <br /> <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 51 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.