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
24 <br />demonstrate any error in LUBA's interpretation that would warrant reversal or <br />remand. <br />C. The PUD Complies with the Public Health and Safety Standards at <br />EC 9.8320(6) <br />LUBA also correctly affirmed the City's findings that the PUD complies <br />with applicable health and safety standards under EC-9.8320(6). Eugene Code <br />section 9.8320(6) provides: <br />"(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and <br />safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, <br />stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response." <br />The City provided detailed findings addressing each of these public health and <br />safety issues demonstrating that the PUD is "geologically stable and adequate <br />for development," that the stormwater can be "adequately treated and <br />discharged," that buildings can be elevated above base flood elevation <br />consistent with the City's code, and that the PUD's hammerhead turnaround <br />will provide emergency vehicle access. LUBA Rec. 375-77; 387-89. ER 86- <br />88; 98-100. <br />On appeal, Intervenors-Petitioners do not acknowledge or challenge these <br />findings, instead they argue that Oakleigh Lane will be unsafe if it is not <br />developed to City standards; and that off-site parking impedes emergency <br />response on other portions of Oakleigh Lane. LUBA correctly addressed both <br />of these arguments below. With regard to the safety of Oakleigh Lane, LUBA <br />found: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.