Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

On October 16, 2013, Mr. Paul Conte submitted an objection to some documents submitted by the applicant. He asked that the record be reopened at that time. Exhibit PT.R-01. He made another request to have the record reopened on October 25, 2013. On November 5, 2013, the Hearings Official the Hearings Official declined to reopen the record, I made no decision on the question of whether to rely on the six documents that Mr. Conte objected to. That November 5, 2013 order is incorporated into this decision by this reference. Where the Hearings Official has relied on the disputed evidence, I have explained why the evidence is admissible under the rules set for the open record period. After the November 5, 2013 Order was sent, Staff forwarded an October 31, 2013 letter from Hearings Official was unable to review that letter prior to issuing November 5, 2013 Order, and On November 8, 2013, Mr. Conte attempted to submit a letter to the Hearings Official. The letter was forwarded via e-mail by Staff. Upon opening the e-mail and seeing it contained further argument about reopening the record, the Hearings Official made a determination not to read or consider the letter. That letter is excluded from this record. Site Characteristics The subject property consists of 2.3 acres in two tax lots that are considered one development site under the current ownership. The property was recently annexed (see City File A 13-1) and is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. The east boundary of the subject property abuts undeveloped City parkland that contains Goal 5 Water Resources associated with the Willamette River, which borders the City property farther to the east. Otherwise, the surrounding properties primarily consist of single-family dwellings on individual lots or undeveloped lots that have potential for future residential development (i.e. at the north end of Oakleigh Lane and abutting the west boundary of the subject property.) Refer to Attachment A for a vicinity map. Oakleigh Lane terminates near the midpoint of the northern boundary of the subject property, which will provide sole access to the development. Instead of extending the street along the entire length of the property, the applicant requests an exception to the street connectivity standards. To support the exception, the applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan for the undeveloped property to the north, to show how it could be further divided without necessitating an extension of Oakleigh Lane. Issues regarding Oakleigh Lane are addressed under approval criterion EC 9.8320(5). buffer between the garages, recycling structure, vehicle use and parking areas abutting the west property boundary. EC 9.6420 requires vehicle uses areas to be setback seven feet from Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 4