My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony (Opposition)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Testimony (Opposition)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:08:26 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 11:42:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
1 <br />Opinion by Bassham. <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners appeal a city decision approving a planned unit development. <br />4 MOTION TO INTERVENE <br />5 Persimmon Development (intervenor), the applicant below, moves to intervene on the side <br />6 of respondent. There is no opposition to the motion, and it is granted. <br />7 MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF <br />8 Petitioners move to file a reply brief to address new matters raised in the response brief. <br />9 The reply brief responds to a waiver argument in the response brief, which is a proper subject of a <br />10 reply brief. The motion is granted. <br />11 FACTS <br />12 The challenged decision approves an 86-lot planned unit development on 69.5 acres in the <br />13 City of Gresham near unincorporated areas of Clackamas and Multnomah Counties. The <br />14 proposed development is phases 6, 7 and 9 of a larger development that includes adjoining <br />15 property. Much of the subject property is steeply sloped and heavily wooded. The property's <br />16 zoning is Low Density Residential District (LDR) with a Hillside Physical Constraint Overlay District <br />17 (HPCD). <br />18 Among other things, the approval includes a major variance to allow two cul-de-sacs of <br />19 over 200 feet in length, a tree removal permit to log approximately 1800 regulated trees, and the <br />20 relocation of a future street connection through an existing residential lot. Petitioners opposed the <br />21 development before the planning commission, which approved the application. Petitioners appealed <br />22 the planning commission's &cision to the city council, which denied the appeal and approved the <br />23 application. This appeal followed. <br />24 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />25 The decision grants a major variance for two cul-de-sacs that exceed the city's maximum <br />26 length. The proposed Street A cul-de-sac is 390 feet in length. The proposed Street C cul-de-sac <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.