My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment (8)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 4:07:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2015 1:52:36 PM
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
11/3/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
I using 5- foot contour intervals, planning staff prepared a slope map that showed that slopes <br />2 on most of the eastern portion of the property exceed 20 percent. The city's planning staff <br />3 initially recommended denial of the application for 75 lots because the plan proposed grading <br />4 of slopes on the eastern portion of the property that exceed 20 percent. In the alternative, <br />5 planning staff recommended a condition of approval that would limit the PUD to 47 lots <br />6 located only on the western portion of the property where West Creek's 5-foot contour <br />7 interval slope map shows there are no slopes greater than 20 percent. Thereafter, prior to the <br />8 initial public hearing before the hearings officer, West Creek submitted an alternative site <br />9 plan that sought approval for 47 lots by developing only the western portion of the property. <br />10 West Creek requested that the city approve either the 75-lot proposal or the alternative 47-lot <br />11 proposal. <br />12 During the proceedings before the hearings officer, Southeast Neighbors' expert, <br />13 Matthews, submitted a slope map (the Matthews Slope Map) that measured slopes on the <br />14 property using 5-foot contour intervals and showed more areas of the eastern portion of the <br />15 property as well as some areas on the western portion of the property as meeting or exceeding <br />16 20 percent slope, compared to the 5-foot contour slope map prepared by staff. The hearings <br />17 officer relied on the Matthews Slope Map to deny West Creek's 47-lot proposal (and 75-lot <br />18 proposal) because he determined that both plans proposed grading of portions of the property <br />19 that meet or exceed 20 percent slope. <br />20 Southeast Neighbors and West Creek both appealed the hearings officer's decision to <br />21 the planning commission. The planning commission concluded, based on the slope map <br />22 prepared by planning staff that was based on West Creek's 5-foot contour intervals slope <br />23 map, that the 47-lot plan did not propose grading on slopes equal to or greater than 20 <br />24 percent, and approved the application for 47 lots. Southeast Neighbors appealed the planning <br />25 commission's decision to LUBA, and West Creek filed a cross petition for review. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.