LUBA 076/077 VOL 2 of 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment 5 i 1 challenge these findings or conditions or otherwise explain why the planning .2 commission erred in concluding that EC 9.8320(3) is met with respect to the 3 northern; western, and southern boundaries. Accordingly, these portions of 4 Neighbors' second and third assignments of error are denied. 5 3. Building Location and Bulk 6 In a portion of their third assignment of error, Neighbors argue that the 7 city failed to adopt findings that consider "building location * * * and bulk" in 8 determining whether the PUD is adequately screened from view from 9 surrounding properties. Meadows responds by pointing to the city's findings 10 that address building location and bulk and conclude that the scale of the 11 buildings is within the range of large and small single family homes, and the 12 proposed height is less than the maximum allowed. Record 401. Absent, any 13 challenge to those findings or any attempt to explain how the proposed PUD • 14 does not satisfy EC 9.8320(3) with regard to building location and bulk, 15 Neighbors' arguments provide no basis for reversal or remand. 16 This portion of Neighbors' third assignment of error is denied. 17 C. Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses (EC 18 9.8320(13)) 19 EC 9.8320(13)(2009) requires the city to find that "[t]he proposed 20 development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and 21 nearby land uses." In their third assignment of error, Neighbors argue that the. 22 city's findings that the PUD is reasonably compatible and harmonious with 23 adjacent and nearby land uses are inadequate and are not supported by 24 substantial evidence in the record. Neighbors first challenge' a finding in the 25 hearings officer's decision that observes that if the hearings officer determines 26 that the proposed PUD complies with all of the provisions of EC 9.8320, then a Page 23 PC Agenda - Page 129 613