My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA 076/077 VOL 2 of 2
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA 076/077 VOL 2 of 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:33 PM
Creation date
3/27/2017 10:26:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
11/16/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
412
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
Nystrom leans across the table and whispers privately to Davies: "Brand new issues raised, <br />too." <br />Davies whispers back:. "I know." <br />Nystrom whispers to Davies: "You might want to say-that." <br />Davies (to Planning Commissioners): I'm having some concern about the breadth of that <br />motion, not just safety but it brings everything all up. And it sounds like the'issue that we've <br />been talking about is the right-of-way issue. (sic Baker's motion was explicitly about the <br />pavement width, as well as right-of-way.] <br />I'd like you to at least have some discussion about how broad that motion should be. <br />1:36:00 <br />Barofsky: Well, two things now that you mention that. Yes, I believe that.l would like the record <br />to be open for clarity on the right-of-way, pavement widths and whether or not the pavement is <br />available for safe passage on Oakleigh Lane. <br />And the second part of why I originally had my hand up was because I was wondering what is <br />an appropriate timeframe. I mean I know that normally we say a week: For me, I would like to <br />make it as short as possible, but yet give both parties a chance to do well-reasoned and thought <br />out and perhaps even survey things. So I would ask staff for some <br />Davies comments and then says: I think we need both sides submitting new evidence and <br />then response to that evidence and final rebuttal by applicant. I think the last two should be <br />short. The first probably longer. <br />Mills: I'm going to suggest another area where there might be a need or benefit from additional • <br />information, and that's related to parking on Oakleigh. It's been an issue that's been raised. The <br />street's been partially blocked. Staff conditioned their decree that it's a safe street provided it is <br />not blocked. We have no information on that. <br />I don't know how you get that; whether somebody has to go out there during the time period and <br />doing some surveying whether blockage is occurring or not. It's a question that I have. I mean, <br />because to me it affects directly to staffs declaration that the street is safe, if that is the case. If <br />that's not the case then it's a question. So I'm just suggesting that. <br />1:39:19 <br />Baker: That was really my concern that by talking about traffic safety more general, is I wanted <br />to be concerned about parking because it was noted in several places both in the testimony and <br />also by the public agencies that it was a concern. <br />1:39:37 <br />Taylor: So Commissioner Baker, you brought up an initial motion <br />Baker: I want to defer it and let Commissioner Barofsky <br />Taylor talking over Baker: Let's restate <br />Davies interjecting: Can I.restate? <br />Taylor: Yeah, restate. That'd be great restate.the motion. <br />1:39:55 <br />• <br />3.28 <br />448 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.