My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/2/2019 4:02:08 PM
Creation date
8/1/2019 3:52:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill
Document Type
Staff Report
Document_Date
8/6/2019
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
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
individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the <br />recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the related <br />geotechnical analysis. <br />The Planning Commission, on appeal, amended Condition #10 in their June 14, 2018 Final Order <br />as follows: <br />A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for <br />design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately <br />Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site <br />development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure and residences on <br />individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the <br />recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the preliminary <br />geotechnical analysis approved for the tentative PUD, as well as any additional <br />geotechnical analyses required for individual permits. The geotechnical analyses <br />required for individual permits shall also address potential off-site impacts. <br />LUBA noted that the Planning Commission's findings did not cite to any evidence addressing <br />off-site impacts or explain why the Geotechnical Investigation provides an adequate review of <br />off-site impacts as required by the South Hills Study. LUBA speculated that this lack of evidence <br />may be the reason why the Planning Commission felt compelled to modify Condition of <br />Approval #10, to overcome evidentiary insufficiencies in determining compliance with EC <br />9.8320(6) and the applicable South Hills Study policy. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE <br />In this case, the Planning Commission's role on remand is to consider the evidence and <br />argument in the record, including the new evidence and argument submitted during the open <br />record period on remand, and to decide whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings <br />Official's decision on the tentative PUD application. The issues within the scope of this remand <br />are summarized above, and otherwise set forth in LUBA's decision and the City's notice of these <br />proceedings in Attachment C. In addressing these issues, the Planning Commission must limit <br />its consideration to the established evidentiary record, which is discussed above. <br />If the Planning Commission finds the new evidence and testimony submitted during the recent <br />open record period does not alter the Commission's previous decision to affirm the Hearings <br />Official's approval of the application, the Planning Commission to adopt supplemental findings <br />in support of that affirmation. In this case, LUBA was clear that additional findings would be <br />needed based on substantial evidence to determine compliance with the relevant approval <br />criteria. The Planning Commission may otherwise modify its initial decision or reverse the <br />decision. If the Planning Commission decides to reverse its initial decision and deny the <br />application, the Planning Commission will need to adopt specific findings of fact as to why the <br />application does not meet the applicable approval criteria. <br />DELIBERATIONS ON REMAND <br />Below is a brief outline of staff's recommended approach to deliberations. <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.