My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary (Dec 9 2013)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary (Dec 9 2013)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:35 PM
Creation date
7/20/2015 11:27:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Planning Commission Meeting
Document_Date
12/9/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
Attachment B <br />Opponent Arguments <br />As noted in the findings for EC 9.8320(6 & 9) the neighbors raised concerns about discharging <br />the treated stormwater on to the adjacent city open space. <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(11)(j) and EC 9.6791- <br />9.6797 and adopts those findings by this reference. <br />The opponents do not provide any persuasive evidence that the proposed stormwater treatment <br />and discharge methods will be inadequate to properly manage the stormwater anticipated to be <br />generated by the proposed PUD. There is no evidence that the proposed rain gardens, vegetated <br />swales and permeable pavement to be used in the parking area will not work sufficient to comply <br />with the standards discussed above. Again., the neighbors raise questions and made assertions <br />about stormwater but those assertions or arguments of disbelief, particularly with regard to the <br />permeable parking area do not constitute evidence upon which the Hearings Officer can rely. <br />(k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in <br />the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed <br />noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of <br />Planned Unit Development. <br />Staff took the following approach to reviewing the applicant's various "proposed non- <br />compliance" with certain development standards. The applicable development standards for <br />features explicitly included in the application, which have not already been addressed by other <br />PUD approval criteria and related standards, are as follows: EC 9.2750 Residential Zone <br />Development Standards; EC 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards; EC 9.5500 Multiple-Familv <br />Standards; EC 9.6105 Bicycle Parking Space Standards; and EC 9.6410 Motor Vehicle Parking <br />Standards. Staff notes that EC 9.6205 Landscape Standards, EC 9.6730 On-site Pedestrian <br />Circulation, and EC 9.6740 Recycling and Garbage Screening standards are referenced within <br />the multiple-family development standards at EC 9.5500. The development complies with <br />many of these standards, as noted below. Where the development does not comply with these <br />standards, as described in greater detail below, the applicant requests a modification <br />("proposed non-compliance"), which is allowed through the PUD process, if the following PUD <br />purpose statements are met. <br />EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. The planned unit development <br />(PUD) provisions are designed to provide a high degree of flexibility in the design <br />of the site and the mix of land uses, potential environmental impacts, and are <br />intended to: <br />(1) Create a sustainable environment that includes: <br />(a) Shared use-of services and facilities. _ <br />(b) A compatible mix of land uses that encourage alternatives to the use <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.