My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Affirm
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2018
>
WG 18-3
>
LUBA Affirm
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2019 4:02:23 PM
Creation date
12/26/2019 2:46:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
18
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
Lombard Apartments
Document Type
LUBA Decision
Document_Date
3/6/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 B. Leasing office and maintenance building <br />2 As noted, EC 9.2751(1)(b) defines "net density" to mean "the number of <br />3 dwelling units per acre of land in actual residential use and reserved for the <br />4 exclusive use of the residents in the development, such as common open space <br />5 or recreation facilities." EC 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1) further provides that "[t]he acreage <br />b of land considered part of the residential use shall exclude public and private <br />7 streets and alleys, public parks, and other public facilities." <br />8 Petitioners argue that EC 9.2751(1)(b) provides two "criteria": (1) actual <br />9 residential use, and (2) exclusive use by residents of the development. Petitioners <br />10 argue that a leasing office and maintenance building are not planned for actual <br />11 residential use or reserved for exclusive use of the residents of the apartment <br />12 complex and, thus, those areas should be excluded from the net density <br />13 calculation! Petitioners point out that neither the leasing office or the <br />14 maintenance building are dwellings. Petitioners argue, and Lombard does not <br />15 dispute, that a nonresident may use the leasing office to inquire and apply to lease <br />1 Petitioners reference the "area adjacent to the bicycle trail," but do not <br />develop any argument that the open space area should be excluded from the net <br />density calculation. Petition for Review 12. That argument is not sufficiently <br />developed for our review and we do not address it. Deschutes Development Co. <br />v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 (1982). <br />Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.