My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (01)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (01)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:03:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
300
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
8 <br />1 family dwellings generate 3,218 pass-bys per day, while the 29 proposed <br />2 dwelling units in the PUD would generate at least 6,065 pass-bys per day. <br />3 Thus, the PUD would cause traffic impacts, as measured by average daily <br />4 pass-bys, to almost triple (2.9 times) from 3,218 to 9,283. Rec 864-865. <br />5 <br />III. JURISDICTION <br />6 The PUD approval was a land use decision that applied Eugene Code's land <br />7 use regulations in a discretionary manner. ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A)(iii) <br />8 Accordingly, it is a land use decision subject to LUBA's jurisdiction. <br />9 <br />IV. ARGUMENT <br />10 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />11 The City erred in finding that the proposed PUD would provide safe <br />12 and adequate transportation systems through compliance with <br />13 standards for streets and other transportation system elements. <br />14 Issue raised below. The following appeal issues were raised below in <br />15 testimony before the Hearings Official (Rec 647-648, 860-861, 868-871) and in <br />16 the local appeal statement (Rec 320-3402) <br />17 Standard of review. LUBA must remand or reverse the application of a land <br />18 use regulation if the decision is not in compliance with applicable provisions of <br />2 EC 9.8320(5) at Rec 323, EC 9.8320(6) at Rec 328, EC 9.8320(11)(b) at <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.