My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearings Official Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
Hearings Official Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:35 PM
Creation date
7/21/2015 10:01:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Hearings Official Decision
Document_Date
7/21/2015
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
individually owned presumably in fee simple form condominiums. This form meets both the EC <br />197.303(1)(a). However, the provisions of EC 9.8325 only become applicable if the applicant <br />elects to proceed under those provisions. EC 9.8325 allows an applicant to choose the general <br />PUD criteria at EC 9.8320 which is the case for this application. <br /> <br />Issues Not Relevant to the Applicable Approval Criteria <br /> <br />At both the October 2, 2013 public hearing and in written submissions, there was a significant <br />amount of testimony that the Hearings Official cannot deem relevant, and therefore, cannot <br />consider as part of this review. This evidence and argument includes: <br /> <br />Generalized statements of support. See Exhibits HE-22 and 26 for examples. <br /> <br />Generalized statements of opposition. See Exhibits HE-5 and 18 for examples. <br /> <br />Comparison of the proposal to other co-housing developments elsewhere. PT-1. <br /> <br />The relative cost of the proposed condominiums and assertions that the co-housing <br /> <br />development will not be financially solvent. <br />The results of meetings between the applicant and neighbors, and allegations that plans <br /> <br />changed when out-of-state co-housing proponents became involved. <br />Perceived fear of strangers visiting the neighborhood and asserted negative impacts. <br /> <br /> <br />Evaluation of Tentative PUD Request <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(1): The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan. <br /> <br /> Staff Findings: <br /> <br />The applicant has addressed several Metro Plan <br />June 14, 2013 written statement), and to the extent that those additional findings and policies <br />of the Metro Plan <br />statements. Staff also notes that the proposal for clustered dwellings, which will be divided <br />into condominiums, is consistent with Metro Plan Residential Policies A.17 and A.20, which <br />encourage a range of housing types and home ownership. With regard to Environmental <br />Policies, the subject property is within the floodplain and Willamette Greenway. Policy C.31 <br />calls for development regulations within the floodway fringe to minimize damage to life and <br />property; accordingly, the City has adopted special flood hazard development standards, <br />beginning at EC 9.6706, which will apply at the time of development and are further discussed <br />at approval criterion EC 9.8030(10)(c). With regard to the Willamette Greenway, Policies D.2 <br />and D.3 require land use regulations and limit new development to uses that are compatible <br />with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities. The applicant has applied for concurrent <br />WG permit approval, which is evaluated below, following the PUD evaluation. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.