LUBA 076/077 VOL 1 of 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment A The PC finds that the HO was correct in adopting the staff findings to address the traffic component of • EC 9.8320(12), in which Public Works staff confirmed 6.e f^IIe`" mRl-: that the development will have - I f t we .minimal off-site traffic impacts, that -v nvI,:T~gI,T, I-a„e ~,=r-~+I id~F safe passage of~ ~~ooo Way aiia , _ Public comments about the accident at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River. Road are not on the City's inventory of intersections with high crash ratings that would otherwise warrant analysis to determine patterns that could be mitigated by infrastructure improvements. (HO Decision, Page 50). The HO findings on pages 50-53 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance,with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. With regard to the design of the development, however, the PC finds that the allowance for reduced setbacks along the north and west property lines does not have a "minimal off-site impact". The PC addresses these concerns in the sixth assignment of error, below, which is incorporated by reference. With those findings and conditions that modify the HO's decision, the PUD will comply with EC 9.8320(12). Sixth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(13) "The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses." The PC generally agrees with the HO's findings of compliance under EC 9.8320(13), as addressed on • pages 54-55.of his decision. The PC finds that the HO did not ignore or misinterpret the evidence ' regarding an accident on River Road at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane, and did not misinterpret the requirements of EC 9.8320(12) regarding "minimal off-site impacts" related to traffic. As also discussed under the second and third assignments of error, the PC concludes that the HO did not err, based on the available evidence that the traffic generated by the proposed PUD is acceptable under the approval criteria and does not warrant additional right-of-way str-6et ;^,P....eFAe..+, beyond what has already been required. However, as discussed under the Third Assignment of Error above, the PC does add a 'condition of approval to require improvement of Oakleigh Lane to a minimum paving width of 14' within the exist ing.right-of-way, based on the additional testimony and evidence. allowed on remand. The Hearings Official was otherwise correct in.adoptingthe related findings under (=C 9.8320(12), with regard to arguments about traffic impact also made under EC 9.8320(13). As such, the PC concludes that traffic generated from the PUD will be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses as required by EC 9.8320(13). The HO findings on pages 53-55 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. The PC finds, however, that the allowance fora substandard setback along the north property line should be modified in orderto ensure the development will be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. The PC also finds that additional screening is necessary between the development and surrounding properties. To address these concerns, the PC modifies the HO's approval to add the following condition: ' o The final PUD plans shall show a building setback of 5 feet from the front property line along the newly dedicated right-of-way boundary for Oakleigh Lane. A 10 foot setback shall be shown Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 9 PC Agenda - Page 10 105