Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

However, I decline to address Mr. Kloos's other arguments with regard to this criterion" (HO Decision, page 8). Staff Response: Staff has consistently applied this standard in a manner that allows construction of roads and access driveways. While it is not explicitly stated, the standard was never intended to block site access, but to provide for a buffer between adjacent properties (which can still be achieved if road access penetrates the buffer). Furthermore, the standard was found to be met in this instance. 4. Fourth Assignment of Error: Although the Hearings official did not address this issue, it would be error for the City to direct the applicant to the Needed Housing Partition process as an alternative approach to developing this project. That approach, although it would not invoke the 19 Lot Rule, would unreasonably delay and increase the cost of needed housing, contrary to ORS 197.307(4). Summary: The appellant describes this fourth assignment of error as "precautionary" and asserts that the City directing the applicant to follow an alternate process involving multiple partitions would violate Needed Housing statutes by causing unreasonable cost and delay. HO Decision: The HO did not address this issue, other than to conclude that it was not relevant to the findings set forth in his decision. Staff Comments: Staff never suggested that another means of developing would be easier or more cost effective, nor directed the applicant to follow any alternative process; staff simply made the point that pursuing a PUD under the Needed Housing Criteria was not the only available development path at the applicant's disposal. For example, a PUD application could be submitted and evaluated under the General Criteria (wherein the 19-Lot Rule does not apply). A PUD submitted under the General Criteria would have the exact same application fees and processing timeframes. In any event, staff believes the PC need not address this issue any further since it is not related to any of the applicable Needed Housing approval criteria for the subject PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official's decision regarding the 19-Lot Rule (EC 9.8325(6)(c)) and the landscaping buffer (EC 9.8325(3)). ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Lots Accessing West Amazon Drive Map C. Applicant's Site Plan (reduced) D. Right-of-Way Map E. Applicant's Appeal Statement F. Applicant's Supplemental Letter to the PC Page 6 PC Agenda - Page 6