My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:50:52 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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
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
ER-13 <br />1 "EC 9.2751(1)(c) sets forth areas that must be excluded from the <br />2 net density calculation. Those exclusions include `public and <br />3 private streets and alleys, public parks and other public facilities.' <br />4 The neighbors assert that easements that might accommodate <br />5 public facilities like water and sewer lines must be excluded. The <br />6 applicant argues that easements are not the same as `public <br />7 facilities' and are not required to be excluded. <br />8 "The- Hearings Official agrees with the applicant. EC <br />9 9.2751(1)(c)(1) uses the specific language `public facilities.' The <br />10 provision does not include the word `easements.' If the provision <br />11 was intended to exclude easements it would so state.. Adding that <br />12 concept to the provision would violate ORS 174.010. Public <br />13 facilities are not defined in EC 9.0500. However, `public facility <br />14 projects' are defined in the Metro Plan. Those definitions <br />15 contemplate above ground physical structures such as water <br />16 reservoirs, pump stations, and drainage or detention ponds. The <br />17 Hearings Official has not been directed to information in the <br />18 record that would necessitate removing the land area associated <br />19 with easements where the infrastructure that utilizes the easement <br />20 is below ground. Therefore, none of the easements identified by <br />21 the opponents must be excluded from the net density calculation - <br />22 including the sewer easement on the eastern boundary." Record <br />23 381. <br />24 The planning commission affirmed the hearings officer's conclusion that EC <br />25 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1) does not require the area encumbered by the sewer easement to <br />26 be excluded, but also pointed out that staff excluded the sewer easement area <br />. 27 and found that even without the sewer easement area the PUD still complies <br />28 with the net density requirement of 14 units per acre. Record 14. <br />29 We understand Neighbors to rely on the definition of "net density" in EC <br />30 9.2751(1)(b) to argue that the city erred in failing to exclude areas of the <br />31 property that are encumbered by the sewer easement, because those areas <br />32 encumbered by easements are not "in actual residential use and reserved for the <br />33 exclusive use of the residents in the development[.]" Neighbors' Petition for <br />Page 13 <br />000062 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.