My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Public Hearing AIS July 28 2015
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
Planning Commission Public Hearing AIS July 28 2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
8/4/2015 1:53:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Planning Commission Public Hearing
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.
/
174
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).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 5 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />unusual where the two criteria require evaluation of similar evidence. We <br />cannot say that the hearings officer's findings are inadequate or represent an <br />erroneous interpretation and application of EC 9.8320(13). <br />Finally, we also understand Neighbors to argue that the proposed PUD is <br />not reasonably compatible and harmonious with the use of the adjacent <br />property to the north, because the PUD could harm cedar trees located on that <br />property. Neighbors' Petition for Review 27-28. We reject the argument for <br />two reasons. First, it is insufficiently developed for review. Deschutes <br />Development v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218 (1982). Second, the <br />argument fails to recognize or address a condition of approval imposed by the <br />decision that requires Meadows to demonstrate that the cedar trees can survive <br />the construction impacts and take any necessary protection measures to ensure <br />their survival. Record 409. <br />This portion of Neighbors third assignment of error and Conte's third <br />assignment of error is denied. <br />16 D. Minimize Impacts to Significant Trees (EC 9.8320(4)(b)) <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />EC 9.8320(4)(b) requires the PUD to be "designed and sited to preserve <br />significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible * * In a portion <br />of their third assignment of error, Neighbors argue that the city erred in finding <br />that the proposed PUD satisfies EC 9.8320(4)(b) because Meadows proposes to <br />remove the four significant trees on the property. Neighbors' Petition for <br />Review 26-27. <br />Meadows responds that Neighbors are precluded from raising the issue <br />under Miles and ORS 197.825(2). Neighbors has not responded to Meadows' <br />exhaustion waiver argument. We agree with Meadows that Neighbors' <br />Page 26 <br />PC Agenda - Page 132 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.