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
I because CC&Rs generally are not approval criteria. Respondents, however, misunderstand the <br />2 nature of petitioners' challenge. Petitioners' assignment of error is not that the proposed <br />3 development violates the CC&Rs; petitioners argue that the proposed development violates CDC <br />4 9.0710(A)(2)-(4) and A5.402(F). There is no dispute that secondary access by way of SE <br />5 Yellowhammer Road is required to satisfy the CDC approval criteria. The city conditioned <br />6 approval upon obtaining secondary access by way of SE Yellowhammer Road. Petitioners argue <br />7 that, given the Kingswood Heights CC&Rs, there is no finding or evidence that it is feasible to <br />8 satisfy that condition of approval <br />9 Respondents argue next that Condition of Approval 7 acts as a performance standard that <br />10 ensures that secondary access will be provided prior to final plat approval. According to <br />11 respondents, if for any reason secondary access is not provided, and the condition is not satisfied, <br />12 the city will not approve the final plat or allow the subdivision to be developed. <br />13 It is well established that a local government may find compliance with applicable criteria by <br />14 either (1) finding that an applicable approval criterion is satisfied, or (2) finding that it is feasible to <br />15 satisfy an applicable approval criterion and imposing conditions necessary to ensure that the <br />16 criterion will be satisfied. Rhyne v. Multnomah Coufity, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992). The city <br />17 attempted to find compliance with CDC 9.0710(A)(2)-(4) and A5.402(F) by imposing Condition <br />18 7, which states: <br />19 "In conjunction with the Phase 7 final plat submittal, the following shall be submitted: <br />20 "a. Documents for the dedication of the 20-foot wide right-of-way or easement <br />21 needed for the emergency road connection between the Persimmon <br />22 property and SE Yellowhammer Road, dedicated to Clackamas County by <br />23 separate instrument. <br />24 "b. Construction plans showing that the emergency road construction will have <br />25 an all-weather surface capable of supporting not less that 12,500 pounds <br />26 point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). <br />27 "c. A street construction and/or encroachment permit from Clackamas County <br />28 Engineering in accordance with the standards listed by Clackamas County <br />29 * Record 131. <br />Page 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.