Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

The above statements are incorrect. The Response Committee has reviewed plans proposed in 2008 and 2014 by the applicant. In 2013 (and in a Register Guard article on 2/6/14), the Applicant proposed to develop 20 large lots (instead of the current 34), which would have preserved more vegetation at the highest elevations, lessened impact on the Ribbon Trail, and reduced safety and traffic concerns. On 2/16/14 the Applicant used a Neighborhood/Applicant meeting to announce that there would be 21 lots. A Register Guard article on 9/11/14 "Annexation Sought for Homes" proposed 20 lots. At the Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting on 5/6/15, the Applicant discussed a plan with 30 lots. The point here is that all previous plans proposed by the Applicant did a better job of meeting the public interest. Here the code states "In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in any determinations." The Hearings Official is giving primacy to the plan that poses more of a threat to the public interest. Assignments of Error, Criterion 3 Appeal Issue #9: EC 9.8320(3): The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height. The Hearings Official made multiple errors in regard to compliance with Criterion 3. Specifically, in order of the errors, the Response Committee notes the following: The Hearings Official erred on Page 31 in the initial paragraph of her Decision when she stated (p.31) "The proposed site plan provides, for significant continuous preservation areas along the eastern boundary, adjacent to the Ribbon Trail... " The preservation area along the eastern boundary of the property is bordered by a 6 foot fence along the entire length of the eastern property line. Neither the Applicant nor the Hearings Official acknowledge anywhere in their narratives that this fence is proposed for construction, even though the Response Committee raised the issue of this proposed fence at the 3/7/18 Public Hearing and on pp. 133-137 [Criterion 9.8320(10)] in the Committee's 3/7/18 written response. This 1870 foot (approx.) linear fence (proposed running the full length of the eastern property boundary and perhaps along the entire northern boundary of the project adjacent to Hendricks Park and a portion of the southern boundary) directly counters the Hearings Official's statement (p. 18) that a beneficial characteristic of the eastern lots is that they "act as an uninterrupted natural wildlife corridor." The Hearings Official again uses similar erroneous language at the bottom of Page 18 ("continuous buffer"), on Page 31 ("continuous preservation area"), and on page 78 ("continuous wildlife habitat and corridor'). The Hearings Official erred on Page 31 of her Decision when, in discussing screening, she stated that "The site is currently mostly obscured from view and difficult to observe from flatter 11