My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-I (2)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-I (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:31 PM
Creation date
3/28/2017 3:49:15 PM
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
10/9/2013
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
CONCLUSION <br />As demonstrated by the evidence and discussion in this testimony, the application fails <br />to meet the following approval criteria: <br />• EC 9.8320(1): The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro <br />Plan. <br />The proposed PUD is inconsistent with the intent of, and implementing code for, <br />Metro Plan Policies A.12 and A.13, TransPlan Transportation System Improvements <br />(TSI) Pedestrian Policy #1: Pedestrian Environment and TransPlan Finance Policy #4: <br />New Development. <br />• EC 9.8320(5): The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through <br />compliance with the following: <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). <br />(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as <br />needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as <br />to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity <br />'centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings <br />to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" <br />means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by <br />pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be <br />used by bicyclists. <br />As the Public Works staff analysis concluded, and the evidence supports, Oakleigh <br />Lane cannot safely and adequately handle the vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic <br />that will occur if the PUD is approved. <br />Furthermore, it is infeasible to dedicate the required 45' right-of-way and to improve <br />Oakleigh Lane to meet the minimum standards required for Low Volume <br />Residential Streets, which would be necessary to safely and adequately handle the <br />vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic that will occur if the PUD is approved. <br />EC 9.8320(6): The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, <br />including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. <br />As the Public Works staff analysis concluded, and the evidence supports, under the <br />current narrow and substandard condition of Oakleigh Lane, safe vehicular, <br />pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response and access will be at risk, if <br />the PUD is approved. <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 21 1 P a g e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.