The Hearings Official held the initial public hearing on this request on October 2, 2013. Following the <br />hearing and open record period for additional testimony, he approved the applicant's tentative PUD <br />with 15 conditions of approval on November 12, 2013. The applicant's concurrent request fora <br />Willamette Greenway Permit was also approved but is not challenged by the opponents as part this <br />appeal. The Hearings Official's decision is also attached for reference (see Attachment B). <br />As relevant here, the conditions of approval established by the HO's decision require right-of-way <br />dedication along the north property line to accommodate future improvements that would widen <br />Oakleigh Lane, and provide a hammerhead turnaround and bicycle/pedestrian way. Irrevocable <br />petitions were required for these future improvements, in lieu of immediate improvement. The <br />decision also granted exceptions to the maximum cul-de-sac length for Oakleigh Lane, which already <br />exceeds 400 feet, and to-street connectivity standards based on the applicant providing a conceptual <br />development plan for adjacent lands to the north. The decision also granted modifications to front <br />and interior yard setbacks, such that development would be within a foot of the street and, if <br />easements are granted by the abutting property owners, within five feet of interior property lines to <br />the west and south. . <br />On November 22, 2013, an appeal was. filed by the River Road Community Organization. The co- <br />appellant is Bryn Thorns, the owner of adjacent lands to the north. The appeal statement identifies <br />ten primary assignments of error in the Hearings. Official's decision, which address two main areas of <br />concern: transportation and compatibility. While different PUD approval criteria and related <br />standards are involved under each of these main areas of concern, Appeal Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (in <br />part), and 10 focus on traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Appeal Issues 6 (in <br />part), 7, 8 and 9 are primarily focused on criteria related to compatibility with the surrounding area. <br />The written appeal statement is also attached for reference (see Attachment C). <br />Initial deliberations on these two primary areas of concern could help to show the Planning <br />Commission's inclination toward these overarching issues, as to whether the proposed development <br />is a compatible fitwith the surroundings, and whether adequate improvements exist within Oakleigh <br />Lane to handle the additional traffic impacts. To this end, staff recommends that the chair begin with. <br />an opportunity to hear from each commissioner as to these primary issues and any specific approval <br />criteria or appeal arguments they wish to address or prioritize in deliberations. It appears that Appeal <br />issue 6 may be the best place to start deliberations, where arguments related to both of these main <br />areas of concern are raised under the approval criterion at EC 9.8320(13). <br />To facilitate the deliberations, staff has provided a more detailed summary of the appeal issues in <br />Attachment D, with references provided to relevant findings in the Hearings Official's decision, the <br />appeal statement, and other re.lated evidence or testimony in the record. The summary also provides <br />some initial suggestions for how the commission might address each appeal issue, in deciding <br />whether to affirm, reverse or modify the Hearings Official's decision to approve the application. <br />"ATTACHMENTS <br />A. Applicant's Site Plan <br />B. Hearings Official's Decision <br />Page 2 <br />121 <br />