LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

report did not require screening in the conditions other than screening around the garbage and recycling area. 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General. (3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height The bulk and mass of the 28 ft tall by 80 ft long townhouses is far from being compatible or harmonious with the neighboring single family detached dwellings. The applicant suggests that the small porches on the buildings will continue the rhythm of the lane. As presented in the Neighborhood Character section above, the buildings in the proposed development will be grossly oversized in comparison to the neighboring properties. In addition, the density of the buildings or the closeness (10 feet apart in some cases) will be significantly tighter and more dense than buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. There should be screening. The applicant proposes no screening on the east property boundary which abutts the public land associated with City's West Bank Park of the Willamette River. The applicant is proposing to use the cottonwoods located about 120 feet east of the east property line as screening. However, the cottonwoods are located on City property and they may screen the development from the bike path to the river, but they do not screen the view of the development from the open meadow on public land. Figure 2 presents the location of the meadow. A well worn path is presented on the satellite image in Figure 2 which is located on public land near the west property line of the public land. Public use of the meadow on the public land is quite evident. The City's Staff Report Vicinity Map shows property lines shifted east with the underlain air photo by about 5 feet, which is a common artifact of GIS layering. In order to comply with EC 9.8320 (3) and the Willamette Greenway permit with regards to retaining the scenic qualities of the Greenway, screening should be proposed on the east side of the OMC property and it should be on the OMC land, not on public land. No screening is proposed along the north side of the development, which is proposed to include a 13 ft bicycle path ROW. The applicant has not specifically stated that the mature cedar trees on TL 200 will be used as screening, yet there is no screening proposed between the north wall of Building 2 the north property line. The mature cedar trees may be removed for construction of a road to access TL 200 during development in the future, thus they should not be considered screening for the OMC development. The health of the cedar trees may also be diminished from the construction of the OMC development which may require removal of some of the trees. OMC should not get the benefit of uses screening on other properties so that they don't have to put screening on their property. No screening is proposed for Building 1 which is located within 1 foot from the proposed north property line (widened ROW). A one foot landscape strip leaves little to no room for screening. This is impractical and likely won't provide enough room for adequate screening. Limited screening on the west property line is proposed on the neighboring property to the west to screen the concrete wall which is proposed as a fire wall of the garage structures and proposed to be placed directly on to the property line. The City conditioned approval with the requirement for OMC to retain an easement on the neighboring property to allow for a 10 ft spacing between the garage wall and future structures on the west property TL 100. The property owners of TL 100 have stated that they do not wish to allow an easement. The garages might be moved to the east before final PUD approval. If so there is still no screening proposed for the west property line. A concrete wall about 365 ft long by about 8 ft tall is not compatible nor is it harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. Page 16 of 20