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-21 <br />1 However, the planning commission found that Meadows' proposal to <br />2 "maintain open space for views and connectivity towards adjacent park <br />3 property and natural areas along the river [was] preferable" to the hearings <br />4 officer's condition of approval requiring landscape screening, and eliminated <br />5 that, condition of approval requiring landscaping along the east boundary. <br />6 Record 13. The planning commission relied in part on Meadows' proposal to <br />7 cluster buildings and found that the clustering of the buildings minimizes the <br />8 overall impact of the density because it creates more open space than would <br />9 otherwise be available.9 <br />10 One of Neighbors' arguments included in the second assignment of error <br />11 is directed at the city's finding that the proposed PUD meets the screening <br />12 requirements at EC 9.8320(3) on the eastern boundary of the property. <br />13 Neighbors' Petition for Review 21. Additionally, a portion of Neighbors' third <br />14 assignment of error challenges the city's conclusion that EC 9.8320(3) is met <br />15 on the eastern property boundary. Neighbors' Petition for Review 25. <br />16 According to Neighbors, the planning commission misconstrued EC 9.8320(3) <br />17 in concluding that open space provides "adequate screening" of the PUD from <br />18 the adjacent park, and should have required the PUD to be screened from the <br />19 view of the park with landscape screening. <br />20 EC 9.8320(3) requires "adequate screening from surrounding <br />21 properties." EC 9.0500 defines the word "screening" as "[a] method of visually <br />22 shielding or obscuring an area through the use of fencing, walls, berms, or <br />9 We do not understand Meadows to have "proposed noncompliance" under <br />EC 9.8320(11)(k)(2009) with the screening requirements for the eastern <br />property boundary, or the planning commission to have approved proposed <br />noncompliance for that boundary under EC 9.8320(11)(k)(2009). <br />Page 21 <br />000070 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.