My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment Received at Hearing
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment Received at Hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2015 4:00:56 PM
Creation date
11/5/2015 11:49:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/5/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) <br />housing, doing so may violate ORS 197.307(4), but that violation would not affect the city's <br />acknowledged inventory of buildable land required under Goal 10 and ORS 197.296. The <br />apparent source of authority for that argument is Opus, which was a Goal 9 case, involving <br />distinguishable circumstances. Earlier in this opinion, we rejected petitioner's overreliance <br />on Opus with respect to Goal 9 issues, and here we reject petitioner's attempt to overextend <br />Opus to ORS 197.307(4) issues. <br />Here, it is worth mentioning LUBA's indication that it does not agree with Mr. Kloos' prior <br />arguments that any land that cannot be built upon based on clear and objective standards must <br />be removed from the Goal 10 inventory of buildable lands. <br />Third, Mr. Kloos argues that the "plain language of [EC 9.8325(3)] prohibits any development of <br />the site." Similar to the 19-lot rule, the Homebuilders did not challenge this provision in their <br />appeal of the City's land use code update at the time of adoption. The applicant's site plans show <br />the required vegetative buffer, and staff simply found that the criterion is met (as confirmed in <br />the staff report). The standard must be read so as not to lead to an absurd result. Mr. Kloos' <br />argument, that a landscape buffer with no means of access would preclude any development on <br />the site, would render the criterion meaningless and lead to an absurd result. <br />Finally, Mr. Kloos' issue regarding fences along the outer perimeter of the required landscape <br />buffer would challenge a decision that was made previously by the Planning Commission <br />(overruling the Hearings Official). The Planning Commission's decision on this matter was <br />ultimately affirmed by LUBA. As a result, staff suggest that the Hearings Official should not make <br />that mistake twice. In the event that the Hearings Official deems it appropriate, and if the <br />application is approved, staff would recommend that a condition of approval be added to ensure <br />that any fences on the future lots may only be located on the inside of the required landscape <br />buffer, not on its outer perimeter. <br />City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax <br />www.eugene-or. gov/plan n in g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.