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
7 <br />"The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems <br />through compliance with the following: <br />"(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, <br />Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subject to <br />modifications set forth in subsection (10) below). <br />"(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including <br />related facilities, as needed among buildings and <br />related uses on the development site, as well as to <br />adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, <br />neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and <br />industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to <br />demonstrate consistency with constitutional <br />requirements. "Nearby" means uses within 1/4 mile <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by <br />pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can <br />reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />"(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis <br />Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 where <br />applicable." EC 9.8320(5). <br />EC 9.8320(6) provides: "The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health <br />and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater <br />and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response." <br />Petitioners' second assignment of error can be boiled down to three <br />separate challenges: (1) LUBA's decision affirming the City's interpretation of <br />EC 9.8320(5); (2) LUBA's decision concluding that the City's determination <br />that subsection (5) was complied with was supported by substantial evidence; <br />and (3) LUBA's decision affirming the City's interpretation of EC 9.8320(6). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.