I <br />Opinion by Bassham. <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioner appeals a city council decision that denies its application for <br />4 planned development approval for a 10-unit apartment building. <br />5 REPLY BRIEF <br />6 Petitioner moves to file a reply brief to two alleged new matters raised in <br />7 the response brief. (1) waiver of an issue, and (2) the city's argument for why <br />8 the city is not required to adopt findings addressing a code provision petitioner <br />9 argued is dispositive and in need of findings. The city objects to the reply brief, <br />10 arguing that it is not limited to new matters within the meaning of OAR 661- <br />11 010-0039. The objection is not well-founded, and the reply brief is allowed. <br />12 FACTS <br />13 A key issue in this appeal is whether the needed housing statute at ORS <br />14 197.307 applies to the proposed multi-family development. <br />15 The subject property is a vacant 0.81-acre lot created in 2006 as part of <br />16 the Coronado residential subdivision, known as "Tract B." At all relevant times <br />17 since 1981, the majority of the area that consists of Tract B has been and <br />18 remains zoned Planned Development (PD) RS-12 (Medium High-Density with <br />19 a Planned Development Overlay). A multi-family dwelling is a primary <br />20 permitted use in the (PD) RS-12 zone. Under the comprehensive plan <br />21 designation that applies to Tract B, the minimum density is five dwelling units <br />22 and the maximum density is ten units. <br />23 The planning and development history of the subject property and the <br />24 surrounding properties is complex. In the beginning was a 17-acre parcel (the <br />25 parent parcel) owned by the Elks Lodge. The area of Tract B is located in the <br />26 southeast corner of that parent parcel. In 1981, the Elks obtained a zone <br />Page 2 <br />