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
26 <br />supported the City's findings that Oakleigh Lane did not require a 45-foot right- <br />of-way to be safe. Accordingly, their argument should be denied. <br />Likewise, Intervenors-Petitioners' argument that parked vehicles on <br />Oakleigh Lane violate EC 9.8320(6) ignores LUBA's findings addressing this <br />issue. LUBA found: <br />"We also understand Conte to argue that the city improperly <br />construed EC 9.8320(6) because it failed to consider whether <br />the `configuration of Oakleigh Lane' will be `a significant risk <br />to public health and safety or * * * be an impediment to <br />emergency response.' Conte Petition for Review 34. Meadows <br />responds that Conte's argument misconstrues the plain <br />language of EC 9.8320(6) and impermissibly adds :language to <br />it. Meadows points out that EC 9.8320(6) requires the city to <br />determine whether `the PUD' is an impediment to emergency <br />response, not whether `the configuration of Oakleigh Lane' or <br />all off-site streets would be an impediment. Meadows also <br />points to the city's findings that the PUD will not be a <br />`significant risk to public * * * safety * * * or an impediment to <br />emergency response' based on the future possible hammerhead <br />turnaround and the condition of approval requiring a temporary <br />emergency access easement on the temporary emergency <br />turnaround on the property until the permanent hammerhead is <br />developed. Record 375-76. <br />We agree with Meadows that the city properly understood the <br />inquiry under EC 9.8320(6) to be limited to a determination of <br />whether the PUD is an impediment to emergency response, and <br />there is no basis in the express language of the provision to <br />support Conte's argument that the city was required to consider <br />whether `the configuration of Oakleigh Lane' off-site will be an <br />impediment." <br />Rec. 37. ER 35. On appeal, the Intervenors-Petitioners argue that on-street <br />parking on other portions of Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to <br />emergency response. However, even if there were evidence of on-street <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.