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 maintains or repairs. We agree. ORS 223.930(1) does not explicitly require that the city <br />2 itself construct, improve, maintain or repair the roadway, in order to exercise the <br />3 condemnation authority. <br />4 With respect to public use of the proposed access road, the city explains that the <br />5 city's Future Street Plan contemplates a public local street between the subject property and <br />6 SE Yellowhammer, constructed to local street standards. The city chose not to require that <br />7 the access street be constructed to local street standards in this decision and opened to <br />8 general traffic, because it determined that streets within the Kingswood Heights subdivision <br />9 cannot handle the additional traffic from development on the subject property, and the <br />10 number of trips generated from the subject development could not justify requiring <br />11 intervenor to upgrade the Kingswood Heights streets. Consequently, the city argues, the city <br />12 required dedication of right-of-way necessary to construct code-required access for <br />13 emergency vehicles, with a condition requiring dedication of additional right-of-way upon <br />14 improvement to the streets within the Kingswood Heights subdivision. <br />15 According to the city, requiring such limited access does not mean that the access <br />16 street is not a "roadway" or "highway" as those terms are defined in the Oregon Vehicle <br />17 Code. The city contends that nothing in the relevant statutes or the Oregon Vehicle Code <br />18 requires unrestricted public access in order for the street to constitute a "roadway" as that <br />19 term is used in ORS 223.930(1). Once a right-of-way is acquired by a public entity with <br />20 road jurisdiction, the city argues, that entity has the broad authority to impose restrictions on <br />21 its use to protect the interests and safety of general public, including closing a public street to <br />22 travel except as needed for emergency access. The city argues that such a restricted public <br />23 street is as much a "roadway" for purposes of the relevant statues as are unrestricted public <br />24 streets. <br />25 Finally, the city argues that even if ORS 223.930(1) does not authorize condemnation <br />26 in the present case, other statutes may. The city first cites to ORS 225.320 and 225.330, <br />Page 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.