Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

"particular prices ranges and rent levels" as the statute requires. Staff stated that the city had determined that all housing types were needed in the city pursuant to ORS 197.307 and Goal 10, and therefore, the proposal is for "needed housing." The applicant provided a brief rebuttal reiterating prior arguments and specifically asking the Hearings Official to make a finding that Vivian Way cannot be built due to steep slopes and that the adjustment request is unnecessary because the connectivity standard will be met. At the end of the hearing, all parties agreed to an open record period as follows: 1) record open for argument and evidence on any issue from any party until November 12, 2015, 2) record open for responsive testimony and evidence until November 19, 2015, and 3) applicant's final argument due November 25, 2015. Mr. Williamson submitted argument by email on November 10, 2015. Staff submitted a memorandum with an attached letter from the city attorney's office both dated November 12, 2015. Mr. Kloos submitted a final argument on November 23, 2015 and the record closed on that day-. No objections were made to the argument and evidence submitted during the open record period. Documents Considered by the Hearings Official The Hearings Official has considered all the documents submitted into the record either in writing, during the public hearing, or during the open record period. Summary of Decision The Hearings Official finds that the application should be denied because it cannot comply with EC 9.8325(6)(c) - the 19 lot rule. The proposal is for "needed housing" as used in ORS 197.303-307. However, EC 9.8325(6)(c) is a clear and objective standard with which this particular application cannot comply. Although I inquired during the public hearing about alternative application options for developing the property, the responses to those questions do not play a part in this decision. The fact that the applicant can potentially develop through partitions or the discretionary PUD track are not relevant to the findings set forth below. As a Hearings Official it has been my practice to avoid making what might be viewed as a type of declaratory decision on contested provisions where I find the application must be denied for failure to comply with at least one substantive standards. I will follow that practice here with regard to the landscape and buffer standards in EC 9.8325(3). Although I want to be helpful to the Planning Commission if there is an appeal of this decision, responding to Mr. Kloos's arguments in connection with this standard and wading into the past determinations of the Planning Director as part of this application appears more likely to muddy future analysis than to aid it. That is particularly true if the applicant decides to pursue a different type of application under the discretionary PUD standards in the future. Evaluation of Tentative Planned Unit Development Request EC 9.8325(1): The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as defined by State statutes. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13)