Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed PUD in compliance with the 19 lot rule at some point in the relatively recent past - before the area had exceeded the 19 lot threshold. I point this out not to somehow blame the applicant for not moving quicker, but to amplify the city attorney's argument that the 19 lot rule has city wide application and is not applicant specific. The record simply shows that other land owners in the immediate vicinity developed lots to the available capacity before the applicant made the current proposal. This means the 19 lot rule has a temporal component. It does not mean that EC 9.8325(6)(c) is impossible for ANY applicant to comply with as discussed in the Homebuilders case. Second, I disagree with Mr. Kloos's assertion that the Group 8 LLC holding demands a lock step decision to approve a needed housing application once a given property is found on the BLI. The Group 8 case involved a unique outlier condition that was a peculiar historical appendage to the specific property at issue. That condition was not part of the city's set of clear and objective standards. As I read the case, the applicant had met the city's needed housing standards but the city determined that the property specific condition was not met. LUBA found that the condition could be interpreted to allow the proposed development, and that finding in combination with the property being identified on the BLI required approval. Those are starkly different facts that those at issue in the current application. For all these reasons the Hearing Official finds that this criterion is not met. EC 9.8325(7): The PUD complies with all of the following (an approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard): (a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either: 1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; or 2. The /WQ Management Area. Lot Dimensions: All proposed lots comply with the minimum lot area requirement of 4,500 feet in the R-1 zone. Lots #3 and #6 exceed the maximum allowable lot size of 13,500 square feet; however, these lots are impacted by criterion EC 9.8325(5), which restricts grading or any development on slopes greater than 20%. With implementation of this slope restriction, Lots #3 and #6 have a developable area of less than 13,500 square feet. Based on these findings, the proposed parcels meet lot dimension standards. Flag Lots: While it is not clear on the submitted site plans, the applicant states that Lots #5 and #6 are proposed as flag lots. These lots appear to meet the 6,000 square feet lot area minimum for residential flag lots, as well as the minimum lot width of 50 feet. Consistent with flag lot standards, Lots #5 and #6 have a combined frontage (pole width) of 25 feet. The proposal complies with all lot dimension and density requirements for the subject zone. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13) 16