LUBA Materials Volume 1 of 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Seventh Assignment of Error. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(3) "The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to anticipated locations, bulk, and height. The PC confirms that the PUD cannot rely on the cedar trees on adjacent lands to the north as screening for the development because those trees are not within the development's control. As addressed previously, under the sixth assignment of error, the PC has modified the HO decision to establish conditions of approval to ensure adequate screening along all property lines; those findings and conditions are incorporated by reference to address this seventh assignment of error and EC 9.8320(3). The PC further finds that the proposed "clustering" of dwellings includes a form of attached single- family units in dispersed buildings, which minimizes the overall impact of the allowed R-1 density which might occur in other multi-family designs (i.e. an apartment complex). Based on the available evidence, the PC concludes that this is acceptable, as-long as the proposed design otherwise meets the PUD approval criteria. In this case, the proposal for "clustering" increases the size of each individual building, but not in a way that offends the requirements for compatibility, screening, or overall character of the area. The PC concludes that added conditions of approval noted above will provide enough clarity to ensure adequate screening which will be implemented during the final PUD process, involving adequate opportunity for public review and comment, as well as appeal provisions. Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 9-14 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. Eiahth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.832001)(a) "The PUD complies with EC 9.2000 through EC 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone." A. Sub-assignment of Error 8.A: the Hearings official erred in his calculation of the net density area pursuant to EC 9.2751... B. Sub-assignment of Error 8.B: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the concept of "clustering" under EC 9.8300(1)(e). The PC finds that the HO did not err in his ca lculation of net density by not subtracting public easement areas,,as asserted by the appellant. Even if these additional areas are subtracted from the net density calculation, staff's analysis shows and PC affirms that the PUD complies with the net density allowance in R-1 zoning for 14 units per acre. The PC finds that the HO did not err in his understanding of the concept of clustering under EC 9.8300(1); however, as discussed previously under the sixth assignment of error, the PC finds that there appears to be sufficient open space within the development site to accommodate the changes required by the PC, which will result in more clustering of the dwellings within the development site. As discussed under the sixth assignment of error, the PC is modifying the HO's decision to require Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD Page 9 14