Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

West Boundary The neighbors argue that the proposed eight-foot wall is too tall, unsightly, out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and violates the required 5 foot setback under EC 9.2750. PT-1, PT-2. The neighbors, including the adjacent property owner to the west, state that the applicant will not be granted an easement to allow the screening wall to be placed on or near the property line. HE-65, HE 66, PT-2. North Boundary - The neighbors argue that insufficient screening is proposed along the north property boundary primarily because setback standards will not be met in that area. They are concerned about a row of mature cedar trees that could be adversely affected by the development. Neighbors argue that the setbacks along the north property line and the screening should be similar to that of residences along Oakleigh Lane - since the north property line fronts on the lane. PT-1, PT-2. The neighbors also argue that the development will not be north property line and leads to the Willamette River bike path further to the east. East Boundary - The neighbors argue that the applicant has provided no screening along the eastern boundary which is adjacent to city owned open space. The neighbors argue that the row of trees between the Willamette River bike path and the subject property are not sufficient to screen the development from the intervening public open space. PT-1, PT-2. South Boundary - The neighbors expressed the same concerns about the south property line as expressed toward the eastern property boundary. PT-1. Hearings Official Conclusions In a relatively recent decision, the Land Use Board of Appeals affirmed the former Hearings Official 9.8320(3). bƚƩƷŷŭƩĻĻƓ tƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ \[\[/͵ ͵ /źƷǤ ƚŅ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ, __ Or LUBA __, (LUBA No. 2011-099, March 5, 2012). That interpretation concluded that EC 9.8320(3) does not require a The Hearings Official adheres to that interpretation here. West Boundary - The Hearings Official screening along the western boundary and adopts those findings by this reference. In addition, the applicant's final comment responds to the argument that the proposed wall fails to provide being proposed - which would plant espaliered trees along the outside of the wall facing neighboring properties. The applicant also submitted an example site plan which shows that the overall design of the PUD can be maintained even if the neighboring property owner does not grant an easement allowing the wall to be located very close to the west property Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 13