Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 254
122k
| id
stringlengths 36
47
| dump
stringclasses 106
values | url
stringlengths 19
341
| date
stringdate 2013-05-20 00:35:04
2025-02-18 09:06:41
| file_path
stringlengths 125
155
| language
stringclasses 2
values | language_score
float64 0.65
1
⌀ | token_count
int64 58
26.4k
| text_before
stringlengths 1
104k
| completion
stringlengths 1
6.25k
| text_after
stringlengths 0
32.9k
| cursor_pos
int64 1
104k
| pos_type
stringclasses 3
values | word
stringlengths 1
60
| remove_mode
stringclasses 2
values | user_message
stringlengths 101
122k
| messages
listlengths 2
2
| offset
int64 1.55M
1.3B
⌀ | page_average_lid
stringclasses 2
values | page_average_lid_score
float64 0.41
1
⌀ | full_doc_lid
stringclasses 5
values | full_doc_lid_score
float64 0.22
1
⌀ | per_page_languages
listlengths 1
123
⌀ | is_truncated
bool 2
classes | extractor
stringclasses 2
values | page_ends
listlengths 1
123
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
On the Existence of Constant Accrual Rates in Clinical Trials and Direction for Future Research
Byron J. Gajewski\textsuperscript{1}, Stephen D. Simon\textsuperscript{2} & Susan E. Carlson\textsuperscript{3}
\textsuperscript{1} Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{2} Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{3} Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
Correspondence: Byron J. Gajewski, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. Tel: 1-913-588-1603. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: April 6, 2012 Accepted: April 20, 2012 Online Published: June 15, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43
This work was supported in part by DHA Supplementation and Pregnancy Outcomes 1R01 HD047315 (BJG & SEC) and Kansas Frontiers: The Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational Research CTSA UL1RR033179 (BJG). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH
Abstract
Many clinical trials fall short of their accrual goals. This can be avoided with accurate accrual prediction tools. Past researchers provide important methodological alternative models for predicting accrual in clinical trials. One model allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. A simpler model assumes a constant rate of accrual. A comparison has been attempted but we wish to point out some important considerations when comparing these two models. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption (simpler model) which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the full three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future research in the area of accrual prediction.
Keywords: prior elicitation, exponential, inverse gamma, Bayesian, sample size
1. Introduction
Zhang and Long (2010) provide an important methodological contribution to the literature for predicting accrual in clinical trials. They accurately describe their effort as an extension of Gajewski, Simon and Carlson (2008). An important parallel result was provided by Anisimov and Fedorov (2007), and was derived and published independently.
The model developed by Zhang and Long allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. The Gajewski et al. model is simpler in that it assumes a constant rate of accrual. Zhang and Long compare their methodology to Gajewski et al., but we wish to extend some important considerations when comparing these two models.
Zhang and Long assert that “in most real trial situations, the constant accrual rate assumption does not hold”. We have found evidence to the contrary. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption using data cited in Gajewski et al. which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the \textit{full} three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future simulations in the area of accrual prediction.
2. Review of Gajewski et al. Model & Bayesian Runs Test
Before reporting the prediction results, we will review the model in Gajewski et al. (constant accrual). We also report here a new Bayesian runs test that we claim is an important diagnostic that should be computed for any accrual problem.
2.1 Review of Model
We wish to predict accrual after accruing $m$ patients. Let $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_m$ represent the gap in time that each new patient is accrued. The goal of the accrual monitoring process is to develop a model for the yet to be observed waiting times $W_{m+1}, W_{m+2}, \ldots, W_n$, where $n$ is the actual patient accrual at the end of the trial.
We assume that $w_i | \theta \sim \text{exp}(1/\theta)$ where $\text{exp}(\cdot)$ is the exponential distribution and $E(w_i) = \theta$. In Gajewski et al. two priors were proposed: a flat prior and an informative prior. These were respectively $\theta \sim IG(k = 0, V = 0)$ and $\theta \sim IG(k = 175, V = 1.5)$, where $IG(\cdot)$ is the inverse gamma distribution. The 175 and 1.5 comes from answering two questions: (1) How long will it take to accrue $n$ subjects? (2) On a scale of 1-10, how confident are in your answer to (1)? The answer to (1) provides $T$ and the answer to (2)/10 provides $P$. In Gajewski et al. we have $T=3$ years and $P=0.5$. We arrive at our informative prior since $k = nP$ and $V = TP$ (the flat sets $P = 0$).
This conjugate prior results in alternative posteriors (flat- and informative-based) $\theta | W \sim IG(m, t_m)$ and $\theta | W \sim IG(175 + m, 1.5 + t_m)$, where $t_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m} w_i$ represents the time the last patient was accrued.
2.2. Review of Prediction Algorithm
The overall goal is to predict $n$ with $m$ gap times. First we predict the $n - m$ data $W_{m+1}, \ldots, W_n$. To achieve this, first we randomly select $\theta_1$ from the posterior distribution and then randomly select waiting time $n - m$ random variables from $W_{m+1,1}, \ldots, W_{n,1}$ from an exponential distribution with parameter $\theta_1$. This process is repeated for $\theta_2, \theta_3, \ldots, \theta_b$. The sum of observed and simulated waiting times, $S_{b(n)} = w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_m + W_{m+1,b} + \cdots + W_{n,b}$ represents $b$ estimates of the total duration of the clinical trial of size $n$. However, $n$ is the unknown, so we use this process to obtain a posterior predictive sample size ($n^p$). Let $T$ represent the time point at which the study ends (for the purposes here $T = 3$ years). We then compute partial sums $S_{b(m+1)}, S_{b(m+2)}, \ldots$ until the partial sum exceeds $T$. The values $n^p_b$ which represent the largest values where the partial sums do not exceed $T$, provides a realization of the predictive distribution of sample sizes. Replication of this process provides the posterior distribution $n^p$. In this paper we will use observations in 1/12 year increments to explore the cross validated prediction of the true accrual ($n = 265$) for $T = 3$ years of accrual.
2.3. New Bayesian Runs Test
A Bayesian runs test, motivated by (Gelman, 2004, Chapter 6), tests the assumption of independence and identical distribution. This test is performed using all $n = 265$ gap data points. First, the number of runs of the observed gap data $(w_1, w_2, ..., w_m)$ relative to posterior mean ($\theta_b$) is calculated. This is repeated for posterior predictive gap data $(W_{1,b}, ..., W_{n,b})$ and posterior mean ($\theta_b$).
3. Results of Prediction
The probability of observed runs larger than predictive runs is 0.3986, suggesting independent and identically distributed gap data. A graphical examination of the accrual data (Figure 1) supports the use of exponential waiting
times rather than a more complex waiting time distribution. We evaluate the prediction accuracy using the expected absolute deviation from the true accrual ($n = 265$), $E(|n^p - 265|)$. Figure 2 displays the monthly prediction across 36 months using a non-informative prediction and an informative prediction. The first column displays the true three-year accrual ($n = 265$) and the point estimate with 95% prediction intervals using only the data up to that point. We can see that the informative prior does much better than the flat prior early on. Past the two-year point the flat and informative versions essentially agree. The second column displays the error across time as measured by $E(|n^p - 265|)$. This can be described in terms of error $\%= E(|n^p - 265|)/265$. Early in the process (first year) the error for the flat prior is above 20% (20-60%) whereas during that same timeframe the informative prior is always less than 20%. The true a priori defined *informative* simple prediction model (Exponential) was extremely useful for prediction in this clinical trial.
**Figure 2.** Monthly prediction across 36 months using a non-informative prediction with 95% intervals
### 4. Direction for Future Research
Our experience is that a constant rate of accrual seems quite reasonable. One difference, perhaps, between our experience and the experience of Zhang and Long is that we work in an academic setting with smaller trials, typically at a single location. We do not know if our experience, or the experience of Zhang and Long hold for most other researchers and suggest that data be collected in a systematic fashion to better understand accrual patterns in most clinical trials.
It is clear that a more complex model can be superior to a simpler model. We are in favor of more complex models in some settings, but a further assessment would note the drawbacks of a more complex model. First, specifying a prior distribution is far more difficult. Important elements in a complex model, such as the number of knots in the cubic spline (Zhang & Long, 2010) are not incorporated at all into the prior distribution, and those elements which are incorporated are too complex for the average researcher to fathom. Second, a more complex model is frequently inefficient with limited data. Limited data, of course, occurs early in the study. We believe that accurate early predictions are very important because small changes to the study at an early stage to improve a sagging accrual rate are easier and more efficient than changes made later in the trial. Third, a simple model of accrual has a closed form solution for the posterior predictive distribution that is intuitively plausible. The mean of the posterior predictive distribution, for example, is simply a weighted average of the data and the prior mean. A
closed form solution also means that tracking accrual throughout a clinical trial could be conducted directly by the researcher on a daily or weekly basis, perhaps even on a simple spreadsheet.
Perhaps a compromise between complexity and simplicity is most appropriate. In fact, we are looking at a linear piecewise regression model as an alternative to a complex spline and a compromise between the two approaches. The piecewise approach would allow for slow early accrual rates (both a step and elbow).
Regardless of using simple, complex, or compromise we would like to propose guidance for evaluating the approaches with simulation studies. While it is impossible to conduct a simulation study that covers every possible research scenario, we believe a broad number of conditions need consideration to show scenarios where a simple model would perform well. Here are some suggested conditions:
1) performance under a constant accrual model. We believe that a simple model will perform well relative to the complex model in settings where a complex model over fits the data.
2) performance early in the trial. We believe that a simple model will perform well relative to a complex model when only a small fraction of the accrual data is available. For example, in Zhang and Long, the simulation examined the performance of the model only when 30% and 60% of the accrual data was available. It would be very valuable to see the performance when only 5% or 10% of the accrual data was available.
3) performance under slow accrual rates. The average threshold accrual rate in the Zhang and Long simulation was 12 patients per day. While this may be normal in large multi-center trials, our experience with smaller academic center trials is that accrual rates of fewer than one person per day is more common. It would be instructive to test the cubic spline model with data where the Poisson counts are mostly zeros and ones.
4) performance under a weak, but not totally data driven prior. While we suggested an initial approach for getting a prior distribution using a simple question (how confident are you on a scale of 1 to 10), that prior was not intended to be plugged in thoughtlessly. Instead, that initial assessment would be used to examine the behavior of the predictive distribution. Review of that distribution would then lead the researcher to revise the prior accordingly. With a total sample size of 3,000 patients (much larger than the norm in an academic setting), P=0.5 constitutes an extremely strong prior. It says that after accumulating 1,500 patients, the prior and the data should still have equal weight. We would suggest that P=0.1 might be a more reasonable prior with such a large sample size, even when the researchers had strong prior information. In fact, all models need to be testing with a range of informative priors which needs to be balanced between two competing models of different complexity.
5. Conclusion
A simpler model (e.g. Gajewski et al.) can and should be used in many other settings. The availability of both a simple and a complex (e.g. Zhang and Long) model of accrual will allow researchers to choose the approach that best fits their needs. Carefully crafted simulation studies designed to better understand the tradeoffs between simplicity and complexity would be most beneficial.
References
Anisimov, V., & Fedorov, V. D. (2007). Modelling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials. *Statistics in Medicine, 26*(27), 4958-4975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.2956
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2004). *Bayesian Data Analysis* (2nd ed.). Washington DC, Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Gajewski, B., Simon, S., & Carlson, S. (2008). Predicting accrual in clinical trials with Bayesian posterior predictive distributions. *Statistics in Medicine, 27*(13), 2328-2340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.3128
Zhang, X., & Long, Q. (2010). Stochastic modeling and prediction for accrual in clinical trials. *Statistics in Medicine, 29*(6), 649-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.3847
|
<urn:uuid:93ed41d8-580a-45ca-a045-395aabbabdd5>
|
CC-MAIN-2015-11
|
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/download/18072/12011
|
2015-03-01T19:20:44Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2015-11/segments/1424936462548.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20150226074102-00278-ip-10-28-5-156.ec2.internal.warc.gz
|
eng_Latn
| null | 3,380
|
On the Existence of Constant Accrual Rates in Clinical Trials and Direction for Future Research
Byron J. Gajewski\textsuperscript{1}, Stephen D. Simon\textsuperscript{2} & Susan E. Carlson\textsuperscript{3}
\textsuperscript{1} Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{2} Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{3} Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
Correspondence: Byron J. Gajewski, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. Tel: 1-913-588-1603. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: April 6, 2012 Accepted: April 20, 2012 Online Published: June 15, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43
This work was supported in part by DHA Supplementation and Pregnancy Outcomes 1R01 HD047315 (BJG & SEC) and Kansas Frontiers: The Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational Research CTSA UL1RR033179 (BJG). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH
Abstract
Many clinical trials fall short of their accrual goals. This can be avoided with accurate accrual prediction tools. Past researchers provide important methodological alternative models for predicting accrual in clinical trials. One model allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. A simpler model assumes a constant rate of accrual. A comparison has been attempted but we wish to point out some important considerations when comparing these two models. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption (simpler model) which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the full three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future research in the area of accrual prediction.
Keywords: prior elicitation, exponential, inverse gamma, Bayesian, sample size
1. Introduction
Zhang and Long (2010) provide an important methodological contribution to the literature for predicting accrual in clinical trials. They accurately describe their effort as an extension of Gajewski, Simon and Carlson (2008). An important parallel result was provided by Anisimov and Fedorov (2007), and was derived and published independently.
The model developed by Zhang and Long allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. The Gajewski et al. model is simpler in that it assumes a constant rate of accrual. Zhang and Long compare their methodology to Gajewski et al., but we wish to extend some important considerations when comparing these two models.
Zhang and Long assert that “in most real trial situations, the constant accrual rate assumption does not hold”. We have found evidence to the contrary. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption using data cited in Gajewski et al. which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the \textit{full} three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future simulations in the area of accrual prediction.
2. Review of Gajewski et al. Model & Bayesian Runs Test
Before reporting the prediction results, we will review the model in Gajewski et al. (constant accrual). We also report here a new Bayesian runs test that we claim is an important diagnostic that should be computed for any accrual problem.
2.1 Review of Model
We wish to predict accrual after accruing $m$ patients. Let $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_m$ represent the gap in time that each new patient is accrued. The goal of the accrual monitoring process is to develop a model for the yet to be observed waiting times $W_{m+1}, W_{m+2}, \ldots, W_n$, where $n$ is the actual patient accrual at the end of the trial.
We assume that $w_i | \theta \sim \text{exp}(1/\theta)$ where $\text{exp}(\cdot)$ is the exponential distribution and $E(w_i) = \theta$. In Gajewski et al. two priors were proposed: a flat prior and an informative prior. These were respectively $\theta \sim IG(k = 0, V = 0)$ and $\theta \sim IG(k = 175, V = 1.5)$, where $IG(\cdot)$ is the inverse gamma distribution. The 175 and 1.5 comes from answering two questions: (1) How long will it take to accrue $n$ subjects? (2) On a scale of 1-10, how confident are in your answer to (1)? The answer to (1) provides $T$ and the answer to (2)/10 provides $P$. In Gajewski et al. we have $T=3$ years and $P=0.5$. We arrive at our informative prior since $k = nP$ and $V = TP$ (the flat sets $P = 0$).
This conjugate prior results in alternative posteriors (flat- and informative-based) $\theta | W \sim IG(m, t_m)$ and $\theta | W \sim IG(175 + m, 1.5 + t_m)$, where $t_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m} w_i$ represents the time the last patient was accrued.
2.2. Review of Prediction Algorithm
The overall goal is to predict $n$ with $m$ gap times. First we predict the $n - m$ data $W_{m+1}, \ldots, W_n$. To achieve this, first we randomly select $\theta_1$ from the posterior distribution and then randomly select waiting time $n - m$ random variables from $W_{m+1,1}, \ldots, W_{n,1}$ from an exponential distribution with parameter $\theta_1$. This process is repeated for $\theta_2, \theta_3, \ldots, \theta_b$. The sum of observed and simulated waiting times, $S_{b(n)} = w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_m + W_{m+1,b} + \cdots + W_{n,b}$ represents $b$ estimates of the total duration of the clinical trial of size $n$. However, $n$ is the unknown, so we use this process to obtain a posterior predictive sample size ($n^p$). Let $T$ represent the time point at which the study ends (for the purposes here $T = 3$ years). We then compute partial sums $S_{b(m+1)}, S_{b(m+2)}, \ldots$ until the partial sum exceeds $T$. The values $n^p_b$ which represent the largest values where the partial sums do not exceed $T$, provides a realization of the predictive distribution of sample sizes. Replication of this process provides the posterior distribution $n^p$. In this paper we will use observations in 1/12 year increments to explore the cross validated prediction of the true accrual ($n = 265$) for $T = 3$ years of accrual.
2.3. New Bayesian Runs Test
A Bayesian runs test, motivated by (Gelman, 2004, Chapter 6), tests the assumption of independence and identical distribution. This test is performed using all $n = 265$ gap data points. First, the number of runs of the observed gap data $(w_1, w_2, ..., w_m)$ relative to posterior mean ($\theta_b$) is calculated. This is repeated for posterior predictive gap data $(W_{1,b}, ..., W_{n,b})$ and posterior mean ($\theta_b$).
3. Results of Prediction
The probability of observed runs larger than predictive runs is 0.3986, suggesting independent and identically distributed gap data. A graphical examination of the accrual data (Figure 1) supports the use of exponential waiting
times rather than a more complex waiting time distribution. We evaluate the prediction accuracy using the expected absolute deviation from the true accrual ($n = 265$), $E(|n^p - 265|)$. Figure 2 displays the monthly prediction acro
|
ss 36 months using a non-informative prediction and an informative prediction.
| 7,644
|
inside_word
|
across
|
remove_all
|
<url>
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/download/18072/12011
</url>
<text>
On the Existence of Constant Accrual Rates in Clinical Trials and Direction for Future Research
Byron J. Gajewski\textsuperscript{1}, Stephen D. Simon\textsuperscript{2} & Susan E. Carlson\textsuperscript{3}
\textsuperscript{1} Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{2} Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, USA
\textsuperscript{3} Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA
Correspondence: Byron J. Gajewski, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. Tel: 1-913-588-1603. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: April 6, 2012 Accepted: April 20, 2012 Online Published: June 15, 2012
doi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43
This work was supported in part by DHA Supplementation and Pregnancy Outcomes 1R01 HD047315 (BJG & SEC) and Kansas Frontiers: The Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational Research CTSA UL1RR033179 (BJG). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH
Abstract
Many clinical trials fall short of their accrual goals. This can be avoided with accurate accrual prediction tools. Past researchers provide important methodological alternative models for predicting accrual in clinical trials. One model allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. A simpler model assumes a constant rate of accrual. A comparison has been attempted but we wish to point out some important considerations when comparing these two models. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption (simpler model) which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the full three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future research in the area of accrual prediction.
Keywords: prior elicitation, exponential, inverse gamma, Bayesian, sample size
1. Introduction
Zhang and Long (2010) provide an important methodological contribution to the literature for predicting accrual in clinical trials. They accurately describe their effort as an extension of Gajewski, Simon and Carlson (2008). An important parallel result was provided by Anisimov and Fedorov (2007), and was derived and published independently.
The model developed by Zhang and Long allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. The Gajewski et al. model is simpler in that it assumes a constant rate of accrual. Zhang and Long compare their methodology to Gajewski et al., but we wish to extend some important considerations when comparing these two models.
Zhang and Long assert that “in most real trial situations, the constant accrual rate assumption does not hold”. We have found evidence to the contrary. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption using data cited in Gajewski et al. which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the \textit{full} three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future simulations in the area of accrual prediction.
2. Review of Gajewski et al. Model & Bayesian Runs Test
Before reporting the prediction results, we will review the model in Gajewski et al. (constant accrual). We also report here a new Bayesian runs test that we claim is an important diagnostic that should be computed for any accrual problem.
2.1 Review of Model
We wish to predict accrual after accruing $m$ patients. Let $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_m$ represent the gap in time that each new patient is accrued. The goal of the accrual monitoring process is to develop a model for the yet to be observed waiting times $W_{m+1}, W_{m+2}, \ldots, W_n$, where $n$ is the actual patient accrual at the end of the trial.
We assume that $w_i | \theta \sim \text{exp}(1/\theta)$ where $\text{exp}(\cdot)$ is the exponential distribution and $E(w_i) = \theta$. In Gajewski et al. two priors were proposed: a flat prior and an informative prior. These were respectively $\theta \sim IG(k = 0, V = 0)$ and $\theta \sim IG(k = 175, V = 1.5)$, where $IG(\cdot)$ is the inverse gamma distribution. The 175 and 1.5 comes from answering two questions: (1) How long will it take to accrue $n$ subjects? (2) On a scale of 1-10, how confident are in your answer to (1)? The answer to (1) provides $T$ and the answer to (2)/10 provides $P$. In Gajewski et al. we have $T=3$ years and $P=0.5$. We arrive at our informative prior since $k = nP$ and $V = TP$ (the flat sets $P = 0$).
This conjugate prior results in alternative posteriors (flat- and informative-based) $\theta | W \sim IG(m, t_m)$ and $\theta | W \sim IG(175 + m, 1.5 + t_m)$, where $t_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m} w_i$ represents the time the last patient was accrued.
2.2. Review of Prediction Algorithm
The overall goal is to predict $n$ with $m$ gap times. First we predict the $n - m$ data $W_{m+1}, \ldots, W_n$. To achieve this, first we randomly select $\theta_1$ from the posterior distribution and then randomly select waiting time $n - m$ random variables from $W_{m+1,1}, \ldots, W_{n,1}$ from an exponential distribution with parameter $\theta_1$. This process is repeated for $\theta_2, \theta_3, \ldots, \theta_b$. The sum of observed and simulated waiting times, $S_{b(n)} = w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_m + W_{m+1,b} + \cdots + W_{n,b}$ represents $b$ estimates of the total duration of the clinical trial of size $n$. However, $n$ is the unknown, so we use this process to obtain a posterior predictive sample size ($n^p$). Let $T$ represent the time point at which the study ends (for the purposes here $T = 3$ years). We then compute partial sums $S_{b(m+1)}, S_{b(m+2)}, \ldots$ until the partial sum exceeds $T$. The values $n^p_b$ which represent the largest values where the partial sums do not exceed $T$, provides a realization of the predictive distribution of sample sizes. Replication of this process provides the posterior distribution $n^p$. In this paper we will use observations in 1/12 year increments to explore the cross validated prediction of the true accrual ($n = 265$) for $T = 3$ years of accrual.
2.3. New Bayesian Runs Test
A Bayesian runs test, motivated by (Gelman, 2004, Chapter 6), tests the assumption of independence and identical distribution. This test is performed using all $n = 265$ gap data points. First, the number of runs of the observed gap data $(w_1, w_2, ..., w_m)$ relative to posterior mean ($\theta_b$) is calculated. This is repeated for posterior predictive gap data $(W_{1,b}, ..., W_{n,b})$ and posterior mean ($\theta_b$).
3. Results of Prediction
The probability of observed runs larger than predictive runs is 0.3986, suggesting independent and identically distributed gap data. A graphical examination of the accrual data (Figure 1) supports the use of exponential waiting
times rather than a more complex waiting time distribution. We evaluate the prediction accuracy using the expected absolute deviation from the true accrual ($n = 265$), $E(|n^p - 265|)$. Figure 2 displays the monthly prediction acro<cursor_is_here>
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttp://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/download/18072/12011\n</url>\n<text>\nOn the Existence of Constant Accrual Rates in Clinical Trials and Direction for Future Research\n\nByron J. Gajewski\\textsuperscript{1}, Stephen D. Simon\\textsuperscript{2} & Susan E. Carlson\\textsuperscript{3}\n\n\\textsuperscript{1} Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA\n\\textsuperscript{2} Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, USA\n\\textsuperscript{3} Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, USA\n\nCorrespondence: Byron J. Gajewski, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. Tel: 1-913-588-1603. E-mail: [email protected]\n\nReceived: April 6, 2012 Accepted: April 20, 2012 Online Published: June 15, 2012\ndoi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijsp.v1n2p43\n\nThis work was supported in part by DHA Supplementation and Pregnancy Outcomes 1R01 HD047315 (BJG & SEC) and Kansas Frontiers: The Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational Research CTSA UL1RR033179 (BJG). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH\n\nAbstract\n\nMany clinical trials fall short of their accrual goals. This can be avoided with accurate accrual prediction tools. Past researchers provide important methodological alternative models for predicting accrual in clinical trials. One model allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. A simpler model assumes a constant rate of accrual. A comparison has been attempted but we wish to point out some important considerations when comparing these two models. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption (simpler model) which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the full three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future research in the area of accrual prediction.\n\nKeywords: prior elicitation, exponential, inverse gamma, Bayesian, sample size\n\n1. Introduction\n\nZhang and Long (2010) provide an important methodological contribution to the literature for predicting accrual in clinical trials. They accurately describe their effort as an extension of Gajewski, Simon and Carlson (2008). An important parallel result was provided by Anisimov and Fedorov (2007), and was derived and published independently.\n\nThe model developed by Zhang and Long allows for slow accrual at the start of the study, which eventually reaches a threshold. The Gajewski et al. model is simpler in that it assumes a constant rate of accrual. Zhang and Long compare their methodology to Gajewski et al., but we wish to extend some important considerations when comparing these two models.\n\nZhang and Long assert that “in most real trial situations, the constant accrual rate assumption does not hold”. We have found evidence to the contrary. In fact, we can examine the reasonableness of a constant accrual assumption using data cited in Gajewski et al. which had data 239 days into a three-year study. We can now update that and report accumulated from the \\textit{full} three years of accrual data and we can demonstrate that constant accrual rate assumption was met in this particular study. We will use this report to frame future simulations in the area of accrual prediction.\n\n2. Review of Gajewski et al. Model & Bayesian Runs Test\n\nBefore reporting the prediction results, we will review the model in Gajewski et al. (constant accrual). We also report here a new Bayesian runs test that we claim is an important diagnostic that should be computed for any accrual problem.\n\n2.1 Review of Model\n\nWe wish to predict accrual after accruing $m$ patients. Let $w_1, w_2, \\ldots, w_m$ represent the gap in time that each new patient is accrued. The goal of the accrual monitoring process is to develop a model for the yet to be observed waiting times $W_{m+1}, W_{m+2}, \\ldots, W_n$, where $n$ is the actual patient accrual at the end of the trial.\n\nWe assume that $w_i | \\theta \\sim \\text{exp}(1/\\theta)$ where $\\text{exp}(\\cdot)$ is the exponential distribution and $E(w_i) = \\theta$. In Gajewski et al. two priors were proposed: a flat prior and an informative prior. These were respectively $\\theta \\sim IG(k = 0, V = 0)$ and $\\theta \\sim IG(k = 175, V = 1.5)$, where $IG(\\cdot)$ is the inverse gamma distribution. The 175 and 1.5 comes from answering two questions: (1) How long will it take to accrue $n$ subjects? (2) On a scale of 1-10, how confident are in your answer to (1)? The answer to (1) provides $T$ and the answer to (2)/10 provides $P$. In Gajewski et al. we have $T=3$ years and $P=0.5$. We arrive at our informative prior since $k = nP$ and $V = TP$ (the flat sets $P = 0$).\n\nThis conjugate prior results in alternative posteriors (flat- and informative-based) $\\theta | W \\sim IG(m, t_m)$ and $\\theta | W \\sim IG(175 + m, 1.5 + t_m)$, where $t_m = \\sum_{i=1}^{m} w_i$ represents the time the last patient was accrued.\n\n2.2. Review of Prediction Algorithm\n\nThe overall goal is to predict $n$ with $m$ gap times. First we predict the $n - m$ data $W_{m+1}, \\ldots, W_n$. To achieve this, first we randomly select $\\theta_1$ from the posterior distribution and then randomly select waiting time $n - m$ random variables from $W_{m+1,1}, \\ldots, W_{n,1}$ from an exponential distribution with parameter $\\theta_1$. This process is repeated for $\\theta_2, \\theta_3, \\ldots, \\theta_b$. The sum of observed and simulated waiting times, $S_{b(n)} = w_1 + w_2 + \\cdots + w_m + W_{m+1,b} + \\cdots + W_{n,b}$ represents $b$ estimates of the total duration of the clinical trial of size $n$. However, $n$ is the unknown, so we use this process to obtain a posterior predictive sample size ($n^p$). Let $T$ represent the time point at which the study ends (for the purposes here $T = 3$ years). We then compute partial sums $S_{b(m+1)}, S_{b(m+2)}, \\ldots$ until the partial sum exceeds $T$. The values $n^p_b$ which represent the largest values where the partial sums do not exceed $T$, provides a realization of the predictive distribution of sample sizes. Replication of this process provides the posterior distribution $n^p$. In this paper we will use observations in 1/12 year increments to explore the cross validated prediction of the true accrual ($n = 265$) for $T = 3$ years of accrual.\n\n2.3. New Bayesian Runs Test\n\nA Bayesian runs test, motivated by (Gelman, 2004, Chapter 6), tests the assumption of independence and identical distribution. This test is performed using all $n = 265$ gap data points. First, the number of runs of the observed gap data $(w_1, w_2, ..., w_m)$ relative to posterior mean ($\\theta_b$) is calculated. This is repeated for posterior predictive gap data $(W_{1,b}, ..., W_{n,b})$ and posterior mean ($\\theta_b$).\n\n3. Results of Prediction\n\nThe probability of observed runs larger than predictive runs is 0.3986, suggesting independent and identically distributed gap data. A graphical examination of the accrual data (Figure 1) supports the use of exponential waiting\n\n\n\ntimes rather than a more complex waiting time distribution. We evaluate the prediction accuracy using the expected absolute deviation from the true accrual ($n = 265$), $E(|n^p - 265|)$. Figure 2 displays the monthly prediction acro<cursor_is_here>\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "ss 36 months using a non-informative prediction and an informative prediction.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 382,635,785
|
eng_Latn
| 0.992449
|
eng_Latn
| 0.993797
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
3861,
7398,
10258,
14347
] |
|
Do you have one of these?
This is my tub of UFO's (unfinished objects). At the moment it continues to grow as there are so many things I want to make but don't have the time to do them all. This week, my aim is to get this box empty before I start on anything else. Hopefully my beautiful children sleep at the same time today so I can at least make a start.
What does your UFO pile look like?
|
<urn:uuid:38c0c46b-39c3-41cd-b2a1-69077dd73b8d>
|
CC-MAIN-2017-22
|
http://jamilycreations.blogspot.com/2011/04/time-to-finish-some-ufos.html
|
2017-05-29T18:59:24Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-22/segments/1495463612537.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20170529184559-20170529204559-00396.warc.gz
|
en
| 0.975068
| 94
|
Do you have one of these?
This is my tub of UFO's (unfinished objects).
|
At the moment it continues to grow as there are so many things I want to make but don't have the time to do them all.
|
This week, my aim is to get this box empty before I start on anything else. Hopefully my beautiful children sleep at the same time today so I can at least make a start.
What does your UFO pile look like?
| 72
|
inside_word
|
At
|
remove_one_sentence
|
<url>
http://jamilycreations.blogspot.com/2011/04/time-to-finish-some-ufos.html
</url>
<text>
Do you have one of these?
This is my tub of UFO's (unfinished objects). <cursor_is_here> This week, my aim is to get this box empty before I start on anything else. Hopefully my beautiful children sleep at the same time today so I can at least make a start.
What does your UFO pile look like?
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttp://jamilycreations.blogspot.com/2011/04/time-to-finish-some-ufos.html\n</url>\n<text>\nDo you have one of these?\nThis is my tub of UFO's (unfinished objects). <cursor_is_here> This week, my aim is to get this box empty before I start on anything else. Hopefully my beautiful children sleep at the same time today so I can at least make a start.\nWhat does your UFO pile look like?\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At the moment it continues to grow as there are so many things I want to make but don't have the time to do them all.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
NOTICE OF A TYPE II DECISION ON A PROPOSAL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
The Bureau of Development Services has approved a proposal in your neighborhood. The reasons for the decision are included in this notice. If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal it and request a public hearing. Information on how to appeal this decision is listed at the end of this notice.
CASE FILE NUMBER: LU 09-121435 AD
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Michael C Robinson
Perkins Coie LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland OR 97209
Owner Representatives: Dana White and Glenda Fossum-Smith
Providence Health System Oregon
1235 NE 47th Avenue, Suite 160
Portland OR 97213
Site Address: 4805 NE GLISAN ST
Legal Description: BLOCK 1 LOT 12, BELGRADE; BLOCK 1 LOT 13, BELGRADE;
BLOCK 2 LOT 12, BELGRADE; LOT 13-18 BLOCK 2, BELGRADE;
EXC PT IN HWY-INC PT VAC ST LOT 5&6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3400 LOT 2&3&4 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3500 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD; TL 3200 LOT 2-6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; BLOCK 3
LOT 1-7 INC PT VAC ST LOT 20-26 EXC PT IN ST, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 3 LOT 8-13 INC PT VAC ST LOT 15-19, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 5 LOT 1 EXC PT IN STS E 1/2 OF LOT 2 EXC PT IN ST,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST W 1/2 OF LOT 2 BLOCK 5,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 3 BLOCK 5, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 1&2 BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 6 LOT 3-5 EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 EXC PT IN STS, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 BLOCK 6, CANCEL INTO R130648 /
CENTER ADD; N 34' OF E 30' OF LOT 11 BLOCK 6 N 34' OF LOT 12
BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 1 BLOCK 2, CENTER
ADD ANX; LOT 2 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 3 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 5&6 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT
IN E GLISAN ST LOT 7-9 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN E
GLISAN ST LOT 10 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN ST LOT
11 BLOCK 2 EXC PT IN STS LOT 12 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 1 EXC PT IN ST LOT 2, FOSTER; BLOCK 4 LOT 1-4, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 6, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 5, MAPLE HILL PL; W 50.69' OF LOT 2 BLOCK 3 E 15.31' OF LOT 3 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; LOT 17&18 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; TL 17200 1.85 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 4200 1.80 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4100 9.54 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4000 0.23 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 2800 3.53 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 3600 0.41 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 17100 0.02 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4300 0.27 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; LOT 21, FOSTER
Tax Account No.: R063800120, R063800130, R063800320, R063800330, R145800010, R145800030, R145800070, R145800090, R145800270, R145800340, R145800700, R145800720, R145800730, R145800830, R145800850, R145800880, R145800960, R146000290, R146000310, R146000330, R146000390, R146000410, R146000470, R146000490, R293500010, R533200340, R533200380, R533200420, R612100700, R612100910, R942310070, R942312630, R942310140, R942311020, R942311320, R942312620, R942312700, R942310090, R293500410
Quarter Section: 2935
Neighborhood: North Tabor, contact Sean Besso at 503-806-9014
Neighborhoods within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood, contact Trudi Rahija at 503-281-5504
Laurelhurst, contact Gary Naylor at 503-232-3398
Rose City Park, contact Ed Gorman at 503-425-1611
Business Districts within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood Boosters, contact Jeffrey Baird at 503-249-8787
District Coalition: Southeast Uplift, contact Lea Hyman at 503-232-0010
District Coalition within 1,000 feet of the site:
Central Northeast Neighbors, contact Alison Stoll at 503-823-3156
Plan District: A portion of the site is within the Hollywood Plan District-Subdistrict A
Zoning: R1, R5, C02, CN2 (Multi-Dwelling Residential 1,000, Single-Dwelling Residential 5,000, Office Commercial 2, Neighborhood Commercial 2)
Case Type: AD (Adjustment)
Procedure: Type II, an administrative decision with appeal to the Adjustment Committee.
Proposal:
As part of a previous building permit, Providence Health System Oregon was required to improve certain site-related development to meet current standards of the Portland Zoning Code. As allowed under Section 33.258.070.2.d, the property owner executed a covenant with the City of Portland to complete the required improvements during a 5-year period of time. This 5-year time period expires on August 5, 2009. Required improvements include interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping for several Providence Health System Oregon surface parking lots. Citing the need to properly phase the improvement projects and the economic expense of completing all projects at once, the applicant requests an Adjustment to extend the compliance period. The phasing proposal submitted by the applicant calls for completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street by August
2010, completing improvements to parking lots along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue by August 2011, and completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street by August 2012. The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades until August 2012.
**Relevant Approval Criteria:**
In order to be approved, this proposal must comply with the approval criteria of 33.805.040 A-F, Adjustments.
**ANALYSIS**
**Site and Vicinity:** For the purposes of this review two site areas exist, the Master Plan site and the Project site. The Master Plan site represents the boundaries of the Providence Health System master plan boundary – generally speaking the areas south of I-84 on the attached zoning map which are under Providence Health System ownership. The Project site represents the three parking areas shown on the attached site plan and identified as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Overall, these parking areas have some perimeter parking lot landscaping but relatively little interior parking lot landscaping. The vicinity surrounding the Project site is primarily composed of institutional development associated with Providence Health System, commercial and multi-dwelling residential development on NE Glisan Street and some single-dwelling residential development around NE 47th Avenue.
**Zoning:** The parking areas located within the proposed Phase 1 are zoned CN2 (Neighborhood Commercial 2) and R5 (Residential 5,000). The CN2 zone is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. The R5 zone is intended to foster the development of single-dwelling residences on lots having a minimum area of 3,000 square feet. The parking areas are an accessory use to the overall Providence Medical Center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CN2 zone but which represents a Conditional Use in the R5 zone. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 parking areas are zoned CO2 (Office Commercial 2) and R1 (Residential 1,000). The CO2 zone is a low and medium intensity office zone for businesses with a local or regional emphasis. The R1 zone allows multi-dwelling residential development up to a maximum density of one unit per 1,000 square feet of site area. The parking areas are an accessory use to the medical center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CO2 zone and which is a Conditional Use it the R1 zone. Improving nonconforming landscaping and/or delaying required nonconforming upgrades to parking lot landscaping does not require approval through a Conditional Use Review. A site which is approved as a Conditional Use Master Plan is vested in the code at the time the master plan is approved, therefore, the parking area landscaping improvements are required to meet the standards in effect in 2002.
**Land Use History:** City records indicate several prior land use reviews for the site, going back as far as 1939, when the original Providence Hospital building was constructed. The most recent land use cases include the following:
- **LUR 96-00400 UD** - Use Determination allowing the establishment of a Crisis Triage Center at Providence to be operated by Multnomah County;
- **LUR 95-00894 MS CU AD** - Previous Providence Master Plan, approved with conditions in 1996;
- **LUR 95-00865 VA** - Approved Street Vacation request for NE Irving Street between NE 49th and NE 52nd Avenues; and
- **LU 02-120615 CU MS AD** - Current Master Plan for Providence. Case was approved with modifications by City Council after a neighborhood appeal. Master Plan includes various projects over a 10-year period, with several adjustments to development standards.
- **LU 04-064294 AD** – Adjustment approved to increase the height of the “North Tower” building sign for a mechanical equipment and elevator penthouse, and screening.
• LU 07-132791 AD – Adjustment approved to increase area of a sign affixed to the east wall of the new Cancer Center building and oriented only to west-bound motorists on the I-84 freeway from the maximum allowed 50 square-feet to 101 square-feet.
• LU 09-106787 CUMS – Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan review to replace a transportation system related condition of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD with an alternate mitigation plan. All other conditions of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD remain applicable.
Agency Review: A “Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood” was mailed April 30, 2009. The following Bureaus have responded:
• The Bureau of Environmental Services responded with information on sanitary services, stormwater management and water resources. The response notes no objections to the proposal to extend the nonconforming upgrade compliance period until August 2012 and points out that requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual will still apply (Exhibit E-1).
• The Site Development Section of BDS responded with no objections (Exhibit E-2).
• The Life Safety Section of BDS, the Fire, Water and Parks Bureaus as well as the Development Review Section of the Bureau of Transportation all responded with no concerns (Exhibit E-3).
Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on April 30, 2009. No written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.
ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Title 33.805.10 Purpose of Adjustments
The regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations apply city-wide, but because of the city’s diversity, some sites are difficult to develop in compliance with the regulations. The adjustment review process provides a mechanism by which the regulations in the zoning code may be modified if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Adjustments may also be used when strict application of the code’s regulations would preclude all use of the site. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and to allow for alternative ways to meet the purposes of the code, while allowing the zoning code to continue to provide certainty and rapid processing for land use applications.
33.805.40 Adjustment Approval Criteria
Adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria A. through F. stated below are met.
A. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; and
Findings: The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades required to bring certain medical center parking areas into compliance with current perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping standards until August 2012. The applicant has proposed to phase improvements for the three parking areas. The parking areas near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2010, the parking areas along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue are proposed to be improved by August 2011, and the parking areas near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2012. These parking areas are labeled as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 on the attached site plan. The purpose for regulations regarding upgrades to nonconforming development is listed below:
Purpose 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development
This section is primarily aimed at upgrading nonconforming development elements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings.
The Zoning Code provides for guidance for nonconforming situations and development with an intent to guide future uses and development to eventual conformance. This provides an important perspective on the proposal to delay the nonconforming upgrades for the medical center parking areas - the overall intent of the Zoning Code is not to force the development to be immediately brought into conformance. The proposed phasing plan provides Providence with a reasonable amount of additional time to prepare and budget for the required improvements. Another benefit of the proposed phasing plan is that it allows the work to occur gradually. Closing and improving all three parking areas at once could result in significant impacts to nearby residents and businesses, especially in terms of the availability of on-street parking. Phasing the improvements so that one parking area is improved per year will help minimize potential negative impacts. As the applicant’s narrative states, phasing the parking area improvements rather than doing all improvements at once, reduces “inconvenience for pedestrians, employees and visitors to the medical center”. The applicant’s narrative also points out another reason why delaying the nonconforming improvements may equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation, stating that during today’s economic climate requiring all improvements to occur at once and without delay would not result in the “highest quality of improvements”. Based on this information, it is important to consider that based on the covenant signed with the City with regards to nonconforming upgrades, the required improvements are based on the regulations in place in August of 2004 when the covenant was executed. In order to ensure that this information is properly conveyed through the permitting process a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition clarifies that future improvements must be made to the code in effect at that time or the proposal must receive approval through an applicable land use process.
Based on the information above and the condition of approval, this criterion is met.
B. If in a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, or if in an OS, C, E, or I zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area; and
Findings: The proposals are located in both residential and commercial zones. The proposal to delay and phase required landscaping improvements will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential areas because the parking lots in residential zones already possess some landscaping, especially perimeter landscaping which is most visible from adjacent residentially developed sites and helps provide adequate screening. Phasing the improvements will also help protect livability in the sense that closing and improving all parking lots at once could result in excessive use of on-street parking and inconvenience for nearby residents.
In this location, NE 47th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Community Transit Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street, and a Local Street. Between NE 47th Avenue and NE 52nd Avenue, NE Glisan Street is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Transit Access Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street and a Community Corridor. NE 52nd Avenue is classified as a local street for all classifications. The response from the Bureau of Transportation indicates that the proposal should not conflict with the classifications of the above streets.
This criterion is met.
E. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and
Findings: The applicant adequately mitigates for impacts related to the proposed delay and phasing of the landscaping improvements by proposing a reasonable phasing plan which will help limit impacts on surrounding businesses and residents which could occur if all parking areas were closed and improved at once. The delay and phasing plan also provide Providence an adequate time to prepare and budget for the required improvements which can result in a higher quality of improvements. In order to ensure that the improvements follow the phasing plan proposed by the applicant, a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition states that parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached site plan or receive approval through another Adjustment Review.
C. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone.
D. City designated scenic resources and historic resources are preserved; and
F. If in an environmental zone, the proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on the resources and resource value as is practical.
Findings: Only one adjustment is requested, the site does not contain any identified scenic or historic resources and the site is not located in an environmental zone; therefore, these criterion are not applicable.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Unless specifically required in the approval criteria listed above, this proposal does not have to meet the development standards in order to be approved during this review process. The plans submitted for a building or zoning permit must demonstrate that all development standards of Title 33 can be met, or have received an Adjustment or Modification via a land use review prior to the approval of a building or zoning permit.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant proposes one Adjustment to delay and phase required nonconforming upgrades to several identified medical center parking areas. As noted in this report, the proposal is able to meet the Adjustment approval criteria with approval granted based on the proposed phasing plan which helps limit impacts on neighbors associated with the closing and improving of all parking areas at once. With approval requiring that permit drawings comply with the conditions of approval listed below, the request meets the applicable criteria and should be approved.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Approval of an Adjustment to 33.258.070.2.d to extend the compliance period for phased nonconforming upgrades through August 2012, per the approved site plan, Exhibit C-1, signed and dated May 28, 2009, subject to the following conditions:
A. As part of the building permit application submittal, the following development-related conditions (B through C) must be noted on each of the 4 required site plans or included as a sheet in the numbered set of plans. The sheet on which this information appears must be labeled "ZONING COMPLIANCE PAGE - Case File LU 09-121435 AD." All requirements must be graphically represented on the site plan, landscape, or other required plan and must be labeled "REQUIRED."
B. The identified parking areas are required to be improved to the landscaping standards current at the time of the 2004 covenant (04-035044 PR). Future improvements not associated with the 2004 covenant must be made to the standards in effect at that time or receive approval through an Adjustment Review or other applicable City land use process.
C. Parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached site plan or a modified phasing plan must receive approval through another Adjustment Review.
**Staff Planner:** Matt Wickstrom
**Decision rendered by:** ____________________________ on May 28, 2009
By authority of the Director of the Bureau of Development Services
**Decision mailed:** June 1, 2009
**About this Decision.** This land use decision is **not a permit** for development. Permits may be required prior to any work. Contact the Development Services Center at 503-823-7310 for information about permits.
**Procedural Information.** The application for this land use review was submitted on April 14, 2009, and was determined to be complete on April 28, 2009.
*Zoning Code Section 33.700.080* states that Land Use Review applications are reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted, provided that the application is complete at the time of submittal, or complete within 180 days. Therefore this application was reviewed against the Zoning Code in effect on April 14, 2009.
*ORS 227.178* states the City must issue a final decision on Land Use Review applications within 120-days of the application being deemed complete. The 120-day review period may be waived or extended at the request of the applicant. In this case, the applicant extended the 120-day review period by 5 days as noted in Exhibit A-1. Unless further extended by the applicant, **the 120 days will expire on: August 31, 2009.**
**Some of the information contained in this report was provided by the applicant.** As required by Section 33.800.060 of the Portland Zoning Code, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the approval criteria are met. The Bureau of Development Services has independently reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and has included this information only where the Bureau of Development Services has determined the information satisfactorily demonstrates compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This report is the decision of the Bureau of Development Services with input from other City and public agencies.
**Conditions of Approval.** If approved, this project may be subject to a number of specific conditions, listed above. Compliance with the applicable conditions of approval must be documented in all related permit applications. Plans and drawings submitted during the permitting process must illustrate how applicable conditions of approval are met. Any project elements that are specifically required by conditions of approval must be shown on the plans, and labeled as such.
These conditions of approval run with the land, unless modified by future land use reviews. As used in the conditions, the term “applicant” includes the applicant for this land use review, any person undertaking development pursuant to this land use review, the proprietor of the use or development approved by this land use review, and the current owner and future owners of the property subject to this land use review.
Appealing this decision. This decision may be appealed to the Adjustment Committee, which will hold a public hearing. Appeals must be filed by 4:30 PM on June 15, 2009 at 1900 SW Fourth Ave. Appeals can be filed on the first floor in the Development Services Center until 3 p.m. After 3 p.m., appeals must be submitted to the receptionist at the front desk on the fifth floor. An appeal fee of $250 will be charged. The appeal fee will be refunded if the appellant prevails. There is no fee for ONI recognized organizations appealing a land use decision for property within the organization’s boundaries. The vote to appeal must be in accordance with the organization’s bylaws. Low-income individuals appealing a decision for their personal residence that they own in whole or in part may qualify for an appeal fee waiver. In addition, an appeal fee may be waived for a low income individual if the individual resides within the required notification area for the review, and the individual has resided at that address for at least 60 days. Assistance in filing the appeal and information on fee waivers is available from BDS in the Development Services Center. Fee waivers for low-income individuals must be approved prior to filing the appeal; please allow 3 working days for fee waiver approval. Please see the appeal form for additional information.
The file and all evidence on this case are available for your review by appointment only. Please contact the receptionist at 503-823-7967 to schedule an appointment. I can provide some information over the phone. Copies of all information in the file can be obtained for a fee equal to the cost of services. Additional information about the City of Portland, city bureaus, and a digital copy of the Portland Zoning Code is available on the internet at www.portlandonline.com.
Attending the hearing. If this decision is appealed, a hearing will be scheduled, and you will be notified of the date and time of the hearing. The decision of the Adjustment Committee is final; any further appeal must be made to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days of the date of mailing the decision, pursuant to ORS 197.620 and 197.830. Contact LUBA at 550 Capitol St. NE, Suite 235, Salem, Oregon 97301, or phone 1-503-373-1265 for further information.
Failure to raise an issue by the close of the record at or following the final hearing on this case, in person or by letter, may preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Also, if you do not raise an issue with enough specificity to give the Adjustment Committee an opportunity to respond to it, that also may preclude an appeal to LUBA on that issue.
Recording the final decision.
If this Land Use Review is approved the final decision must be recorded with the Multnomah County Recorder. A few days prior to the last day to appeal, the City will mail instructions to the applicant for recording the documents associated with their final land use decision.
- Unless appealed, the final decision may be recorded on or after June 16, 2009 – (the day following the last day to appeal).
- A building or zoning permit will be issued only after the final decision is recorded.
The applicant, builder, or a representative may record the final decision as follows:
- By Mail: Send the two recording sheets (sent in separate mailing) and the final Land Use Review decision with a check made payable to the Multnomah County Recorder to: Multnomah County Recorder, P.O. Box 5007, Portland OR 97208. The recording fee is identified on the recording sheet. Please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
- In Person: Bring the two recording sheets (sent in separate mailing) and the final Land Use Review decision with a check made payable to the Multnomah County Recorder to the County Recorder’s office located at 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, #158, Portland OR 97214. The recording fee is identified on the recording sheet.
For further information on recording, please call the County Recorder at 503-988-3034 For further information on your recording documents please call the Bureau of Development Services Land Use Services Division at 503-823-0625.
Expiration of this approval. An approval expires three years from the date the final decision is rendered unless a building permit has been issued, or the approved activity has begun.
Where a site has received approval for multiple developments, and a building permit is not issued for all of the approved development within three years of the date of the final decision, a new land use review will be required before a permit will be issued for the remaining development, subject to the Zoning Code in effect at that time.
Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment approvals do not expire.
Applying for your permits. A building permit, occupancy permit, or development permit may be required before carrying out an approved project. At the time they apply for a permit, permittees must demonstrate compliance with:
- All conditions imposed herein;
- All applicable development standards, unless specifically exempted as part of this land use review;
- All requirements of the building code; and
- All provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Portland, and all other applicable ordinances, provisions and regulations of the City.
EXHIBITS
NOT ATTACHED UNLESS INDICATED
A. Applicant’s Statement and Original LU Application
1. Email from Michael Robinson extending decision deadline.
B. Zoning Map (attached)
C. Plans/Drawings:
1. Site Plan (attached)
D. Notification information:
1. Mailing list
2. Mailed notice
E. Agency Responses:
1. Bureau of Environmental Services
2. Site Development Review Section of BDS
3. Summary sheet of agency responses
F. Correspondence: None received
G. Other:
1. 04-035044 PR Nonconforming Development Option 2 Request
2. Site History Research
The Bureau of Development Services is committed to providing equal access to information and hearings. If you need special accommodations, please call 503-823-7300 (TTY 503-823-6868).
ZONING
Site
File No. LU 09-121435 AD
1/4 Section 2935, 2936, 3035, 3036
Scale 1 inch = 400 feet
State_Id IN2E31BB 2801
Exhibit B (Apr 16, 2009)
|
<urn:uuid:db0e7581-6b67-4c78-9617-d9c3495fa51c>
|
CC-MAIN-2016-07
|
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/248063
|
2016-02-14T00:11:01Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2016-07/segments/1454701168065.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20160205193928-00146-ip-10-236-182-209.ec2.internal.warc.gz
|
eng_Latn
| null | 6,550
|
NOTICE OF A TYPE II DECISION ON A PROPOSAL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
The Bureau of Development Services has approved a proposal in your neighborhood. The reasons for the decision are included in this notice. If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal it and request a public hearing. Information on how to appeal this decision is listed at the end of this notice.
CASE FILE NUMBER: LU 09-121435 AD
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Michael C Robinson
Perkins Coie LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland OR 97209
Owner Representatives: Dana White and Glenda Fossum-Smith
Providence Health System Oregon
1235 NE 47th Avenue, Suite 160
Portland OR 97213
Site Address: 4805 NE GLISAN ST
Legal Description: BLOCK 1 LOT 12, BELGRADE; BLOCK 1 LOT 13, BELGRADE;
BLOCK 2 LOT 12, BELGRADE; LOT 13-18 BLOCK 2, BELGRADE;
EXC PT IN HWY-INC PT VAC ST LOT 5&6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3400 LOT 2&3&4 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3500 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD; TL 3200 LOT 2-6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; BLOCK 3
LOT 1-7 INC PT VAC ST LOT 20-26 EXC PT IN ST, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 3 LOT 8-13 INC PT VAC ST LOT 15-19, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 5 LOT 1 EXC PT IN STS E 1/2 OF LOT 2 EXC PT IN ST,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST W 1/2 OF LOT 2 BLOCK 5,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 3 BLOCK 5, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 1&2 BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 6 LOT 3-5 EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 EXC PT IN STS, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 BLOCK 6, CANCEL INTO R130648 /
CENTER ADD; N 34' OF E 30' OF LOT 11 BLOCK 6 N 34' OF LOT 12
BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 1 BLOCK 2, CENTER
ADD ANX; LOT 2 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 3 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 5&6 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT
IN E GLISAN ST LOT 7-9 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN E
GLISAN ST LOT 10 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN ST LOT
11 BLOCK 2 EXC PT IN STS LOT 12 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 1 EXC PT IN ST LOT 2, FOSTER; BLOCK 4 LOT 1-4, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 6, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 5, MAPLE HILL PL; W 50.69' OF LOT 2 BLOCK 3 E 15.31' OF LOT 3 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; LOT 17&18 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; TL 17200 1.85 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 4200 1.80 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4100 9.54 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4000 0.23 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 2800 3.53 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 3600 0.41 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 17100 0.02 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4300 0.27 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; LOT 21, FOSTER
Tax Account No.: R063800120, R063800130, R063800320, R063800330, R145800010, R145800030, R145800070, R145800090, R145800270, R145800340, R145800700, R145800720, R145800730, R145800830, R145800850, R145800880, R145800960, R146000290, R146000310, R146000330, R146000390, R146000410, R146000470, R146000490, R293500010, R533200340, R533200380, R533200420, R612100700, R612100910, R942310070, R942312630, R942310140, R942311020, R942311320, R942312620, R942312700, R942310090, R293500410
Quarter Section: 2935
Neighborhood: North Tabor, contact Sean Besso at 503-806-9014
Neighborhoods within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood, contact Trudi Rahija at 503-281-5504
Laurelhurst, contact Gary Naylor at 503-232-3398
Rose City Park, contact Ed Gorman at 503-425-1611
Business Districts within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood Boosters, contact Jeffrey Baird at 503-249-8787
District Coalition: Southeast Uplift, contact Lea Hyman at 503-232-0010
District Coalition within 1,000 feet of the site:
Central Northeast Neighbors, contact Alison Stoll at 503-823-3156
Plan District: A portion of the site is within the Hollywood Plan District-Subdistrict A
Zoning: R1, R5, C02, CN2 (Multi-Dwelling Residential 1,000, Single-Dwelling Residential 5,000, Office Commercial 2, Neighborhood Commercial 2)
Case Type: AD (Adjustment)
Procedure: Type II, an administrative decision with appeal to the Adjustment Committee.
Proposal:
As part of a previous building permit, Providence Health System Oregon was required to improve certain site-related development to meet current standards of the Portland Zoning Code. As allowed under Section 33.258.070.2.d, the property owner executed a covenant with the City of Portland to complete the required improvements during a 5-year period of time. This 5-year time period expires on August 5, 2009. Required improvements include interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping for several Providence Health System Oregon surface parking lots. Citing the need to properly phase the improvement projects and the economic expense of completing all projects at once, the applicant requests an Adjustment to extend the compliance period. The phasing proposal submitted by the applicant calls for completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street by August
2010, completing improvements to parking lots along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue by August 2011, and completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street by August 2012. The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades until August 2012.
**Relevant Approval Criteria:**
In order to be approved, this proposal must comply with the approval criteria of 33.805.040 A-F, Adjustments.
**ANALYSIS**
**Site and Vicinity:** For the purposes of this review two site areas exist, the Master Plan site and the Project site. The Master Plan site represents the boundaries of the Providence Health System master plan boundary – generally speaking the areas south of I-84 on the attached zoning map which are under Providence Health System ownership. The Project site represents the three parking areas shown on the attached site plan and identified as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Overall, these parking areas have some perimeter parking lot landscaping but relatively little interior parking lot landscaping. The vicinity surrounding the Project site is primarily composed of institutional development associated with Providence Health System, commercial and multi-dwelling residential development on NE Glisan Street and some single-dwelling residential development around NE 47th Avenue.
**Zoning:** The parking areas located within the proposed Phase 1 are zoned CN2 (Neighborhood Commercial 2) and R5 (Residential 5,000). The CN2 zone is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. The R5 zone is intended to foster the development of single-dwelling residences on lots having a minimum area of 3,000 square feet. The parking areas are an accessory use to the overall Providence Medical Center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CN2 zone but which represents a Conditional Use in the R5 zone. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 parking areas are zoned CO2 (Office Commercial 2) and R1 (Residential 1,000). The CO2 zone is a low and medium intensity office zone for businesses with a local or regional emphasis. The R1 zone allows multi-dwelling residential development up to a maximum density of one unit per 1,000 square feet of site area. The parking areas are an accessory use to the medical center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CO2 zone and which is a Conditional Use it the R1 zone. Improving nonconforming landscaping and/or delaying required nonconforming upgrades to parking lot landscaping does not require approval through a Conditional Use Review. A site which is approved as a Conditional Use Master Plan is vested in the code at the time the master plan is approved, therefore, the parking area landscaping improvements are required to meet the standards in effect in 2002.
**Land Use History:** City records indicate several prior land use reviews for the site, going back as far as 1939, when the original Providence Hospital building was constructed. The most recent land use cases include the following:
- **LUR 96-00400 UD** - Use Determination allowing the establishment of a Crisis Triage Center at Providence to be operated by Multnomah County;
- **LUR 95-00894 MS CU AD** - Previous Providence Master Plan, approved with conditions in 1996;
- **LUR 95-00865 VA** - Approved Street Vacation request for NE Irving Street between NE 49th and NE 52nd Avenues; and
- **LU 02-120615 CU MS AD** - Current Master Plan for Providence. Case was approved with modifications by City Council after a neighborhood appeal. Master Plan includes various projects over a 10-year period, with several adjustments to development standards.
- **LU 04-064294 AD** – Adjustment approved to increase the height of the “North Tower” building sign for a mechanical equipment and elevator penthouse, and screening.
• LU 07-132791 AD – Adjustment approved to increase area of a sign affixed to the east wall of the new Cancer Center building and oriented only to west-bound motorists on the I-84 freeway from the maximum allowed 50 square-feet to 101 square-feet.
• LU 09-106787 CUMS – Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan review to replace a transportation system related condition of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD with an alternate mitigation plan. All other conditions of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD remain applicable.
Agency Review: A “Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood” was mailed April 30, 2009. The following Bureaus have responded:
• The Bureau of Environmental Services responded with information on sanitary services, stormwater management and water resources. The response notes no objections to the proposal to extend the nonconforming upgrade compliance period until August 2012 and points out that requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual will still apply (Exhibit E-1).
• The Site Development Section of BDS responded with no objections (Exhibit E-2).
• The Life Safety Section of BDS, the Fire, Water and Parks Bureaus as well as the Development Review Section of the Bureau of Transportation all responded with no concerns (Exhibit E-3).
Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on April 30, 2009. No written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.
ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Title 33.805.10 Purpose of Adjustments
The regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations apply city-wide, but because of the city’s diversity, some sites are difficult to develop in compliance with the regulations. The adjustment review process provides a mechanism by which the regulations in the zoning code may be modified if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Adjustments may also be used when strict application of the code’s regulations would preclude all use of the site. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and to allow for alternative ways to meet the purposes of the code, while allowing the zoning code to continue to provide certainty and rapid processing for land use applications.
33.805.40 Adjustment Approval Criteria
Adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria A. through F. stated below are met.
A. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; and
Findings: The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades required to bring certain medical center parking areas into compliance with current perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping standards until August 2012. The applicant has proposed to phase improvements for the three parking areas. The parking areas near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2010, the parking areas along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue are proposed to be improved by August 2011, and the parking areas near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2012. These parking areas are labeled as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 on the attached site plan. The purpose for regulations regarding upgrades to nonconforming development is listed below:
Purpose 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development
This section is primarily aimed at upgrading nonconforming development elements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings.
The Zoning Code provides for guidance for nonconforming situations and development with an intent to guide future uses and development to eventual conformance. This provides an important perspective on the proposal to delay the nonconforming upgrades for the medical center parking areas - the overall intent of the Zoning Code is not to force the development to be immediately brought into conformance. The proposed phasing plan provides Providence with a reasonable amount of additional time to prepare and budget for the required improvements. Another benefit of the proposed phasing plan is that it allows the work to occur gradually. Closing and improving all three parking areas at once could result in significant impacts to nearby residents and businesses, especially in terms of the availability of on-street parking. Phasing the improvements so that one parking area is improved per year will help minimize potential negative impacts. As the applicant’s narrative states, phasing the parking area improvements rather than doing all improvements at once, reduces “inconvenience for pedestrians, employees and visitors to the medical center”. The applicant’s narrative also points out another reason why delaying the nonconforming improvements may equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation, stating that during today’s economic climate requiring all improvements to occur at once and without delay would not result in the “highest quality of improvements”. Based on this information, it is important to consider that based on the covenant signed with the City with regards to nonconforming upgrades, the required improvements are based on the regulations in place in August of 2004 when the covenant was executed. In order to ensure that this information is properly conveyed through the permitting process a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition clarifies that future improvements must be made to the code in effect at that time or the proposal must receive approval through an applicable land use process.
Based on the information above and the condition of approval, this criterion is met.
B. If in a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, or if in an OS, C, E, or I zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area; and
Findings: The proposals are located in both residential and commercial zones. The proposal to delay and phase required landscaping improvements will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential areas because the parking lots in residential zones already possess some landscaping, especially perimeter landscaping which is most visible from adjacent residentially developed sites and helps provide adequate screening. Phasing the improvements will also help protect livability in the sense that closing and improving all parking lots at once could result in excessive use of on-street parking and inconvenience for nearby residents.
In this location, NE 47th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Community Transit Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street, and a Local Street. Between NE 47th Avenue and NE 52nd Avenue, NE Glisan Street is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Transit Access Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street and a Community Corridor. NE 52nd Avenue is classified as a local street for all classifications. The response from the Bureau of Transportation indicates that the proposal should not conflict with the classifications of the above streets.
This criterion is met.
E. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and
Findings: The applicant adequately mitigates for impacts related to the proposed delay and phasing of the landscaping improvements by proposing a reasonable phasing plan which will help limit impacts on surrounding businesses and residents which could occur if all parking areas were closed and improved at once. The delay and phasing plan also provide Providence an adequate time to prepare and budget for the required improvements which can result in a higher quality of improvements. In order to ensure that the improvements follow the phasing plan proposed by the applicant, a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition states that parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached site plan or receive approval through another Adjustment Review.
C. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone.
D. City designated scenic resources and historic resources are preserved; and
F. If in an environmental zone, the proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on the resources and resource value as is practical.
Findings: Only one adjustment is requested, the site does not contain any identified scenic or historic resources and the site is not located in an environmental zone; therefore, these criterion are not applicable.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Unless specifically required in the approval criteria listed above, this proposal does not have to meet the development standards in order to be approved during this review process. The plans submitted for a building or zoning permit must demonstrate that all development standards of Title 33 can be met, or have received an Adjustment or Modification via a land use review prior to the approval of a building or zoning permit.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant proposes one Adjustment to delay and phase required nonconforming upgrades to several identified medical center parking areas. As noted in this report, the proposal is able to meet the Adjustment approval criteria with approval granted based on the proposed phasing plan which helps limit impacts on neighbors associated with the closing and improving of all parking areas at once. With approval requiring that permit drawings comply with the conditions of approval listed below, the request meets the applicable criteria and should be approved.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Approval of an Adjustment to 33.258.070.2.d to extend the compliance period for phased nonconforming upgrades through August 2012, per the approved site plan, Exhibit C-1, signed and dated May 28, 2009, subject to the following conditions:
A. As part of the building permit application submittal, the following development-related conditions (B through C) must be noted on each of the 4 required site plans or included as a sheet in the numbered set of plans. The sheet on which this information appears must be labeled "ZONING COMPLIANCE PAGE - Case File LU 09-121435 AD." All requirements must be graphically represented on the site plan, landscape, or other required plan and must be labeled "REQUIRED."
B. The identified parking areas are required to be improved to the landscaping standards current at the time of the 2004 covenant (04-035044 PR). Future improvements not associated with the 2004 covenant must be made to the standards in effect at that time or receive approval through an Adjustment Review or other applicable City land use process.
C. Parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached
|
site plan or a modified phasing plan must receive approval through another Adjustment Review.
| 20,214
|
beginning_of_word
|
site
|
remove_all
|
<url>
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/248063
</url>
<text>
NOTICE OF A TYPE II DECISION ON A PROPOSAL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
The Bureau of Development Services has approved a proposal in your neighborhood. The reasons for the decision are included in this notice. If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal it and request a public hearing. Information on how to appeal this decision is listed at the end of this notice.
CASE FILE NUMBER: LU 09-121435 AD
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Michael C Robinson
Perkins Coie LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland OR 97209
Owner Representatives: Dana White and Glenda Fossum-Smith
Providence Health System Oregon
1235 NE 47th Avenue, Suite 160
Portland OR 97213
Site Address: 4805 NE GLISAN ST
Legal Description: BLOCK 1 LOT 12, BELGRADE; BLOCK 1 LOT 13, BELGRADE;
BLOCK 2 LOT 12, BELGRADE; LOT 13-18 BLOCK 2, BELGRADE;
EXC PT IN HWY-INC PT VAC ST LOT 5&6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3400 LOT 2&3&4 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3500 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD; TL 3200 LOT 2-6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; BLOCK 3
LOT 1-7 INC PT VAC ST LOT 20-26 EXC PT IN ST, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 3 LOT 8-13 INC PT VAC ST LOT 15-19, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 5 LOT 1 EXC PT IN STS E 1/2 OF LOT 2 EXC PT IN ST,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST W 1/2 OF LOT 2 BLOCK 5,
CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 3 BLOCK 5, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 1&2 BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD;
BLOCK 6 LOT 3-5 EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 EXC PT IN STS, CENTER
ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 BLOCK 6, CANCEL INTO R130648 /
CENTER ADD; N 34' OF E 30' OF LOT 11 BLOCK 6 N 34' OF LOT 12
BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 1 BLOCK 2, CENTER
ADD ANX; LOT 2 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 3 BLOCK 2,
CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 5&6 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT
IN E GLISAN ST LOT 7-9 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN E
GLISAN ST LOT 10 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN ST LOT
11 BLOCK 2 EXC PT IN STS LOT 12 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 1 EXC PT IN ST LOT 2, FOSTER; BLOCK 4 LOT 1-4, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 6, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 5, MAPLE HILL PL; W 50.69' OF LOT 2 BLOCK 3 E 15.31' OF LOT 3 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; LOT 17&18 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; TL 17200 1.85 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 4200 1.80 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4100 9.54 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4000 0.23 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 2800 3.53 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 3600 0.41 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 17100 0.02 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4300 0.27 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; LOT 21, FOSTER
Tax Account No.: R063800120, R063800130, R063800320, R063800330, R145800010, R145800030, R145800070, R145800090, R145800270, R145800340, R145800700, R145800720, R145800730, R145800830, R145800850, R145800880, R145800960, R146000290, R146000310, R146000330, R146000390, R146000410, R146000470, R146000490, R293500010, R533200340, R533200380, R533200420, R612100700, R612100910, R942310070, R942312630, R942310140, R942311020, R942311320, R942312620, R942312700, R942310090, R293500410
Quarter Section: 2935
Neighborhood: North Tabor, contact Sean Besso at 503-806-9014
Neighborhoods within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood, contact Trudi Rahija at 503-281-5504
Laurelhurst, contact Gary Naylor at 503-232-3398
Rose City Park, contact Ed Gorman at 503-425-1611
Business Districts within 1,000 feet of the site:
Hollywood Boosters, contact Jeffrey Baird at 503-249-8787
District Coalition: Southeast Uplift, contact Lea Hyman at 503-232-0010
District Coalition within 1,000 feet of the site:
Central Northeast Neighbors, contact Alison Stoll at 503-823-3156
Plan District: A portion of the site is within the Hollywood Plan District-Subdistrict A
Zoning: R1, R5, C02, CN2 (Multi-Dwelling Residential 1,000, Single-Dwelling Residential 5,000, Office Commercial 2, Neighborhood Commercial 2)
Case Type: AD (Adjustment)
Procedure: Type II, an administrative decision with appeal to the Adjustment Committee.
Proposal:
As part of a previous building permit, Providence Health System Oregon was required to improve certain site-related development to meet current standards of the Portland Zoning Code. As allowed under Section 33.258.070.2.d, the property owner executed a covenant with the City of Portland to complete the required improvements during a 5-year period of time. This 5-year time period expires on August 5, 2009. Required improvements include interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping for several Providence Health System Oregon surface parking lots. Citing the need to properly phase the improvement projects and the economic expense of completing all projects at once, the applicant requests an Adjustment to extend the compliance period. The phasing proposal submitted by the applicant calls for completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street by August
2010, completing improvements to parking lots along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue by August 2011, and completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street by August 2012. The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades until August 2012.
**Relevant Approval Criteria:**
In order to be approved, this proposal must comply with the approval criteria of 33.805.040 A-F, Adjustments.
**ANALYSIS**
**Site and Vicinity:** For the purposes of this review two site areas exist, the Master Plan site and the Project site. The Master Plan site represents the boundaries of the Providence Health System master plan boundary – generally speaking the areas south of I-84 on the attached zoning map which are under Providence Health System ownership. The Project site represents the three parking areas shown on the attached site plan and identified as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Overall, these parking areas have some perimeter parking lot landscaping but relatively little interior parking lot landscaping. The vicinity surrounding the Project site is primarily composed of institutional development associated with Providence Health System, commercial and multi-dwelling residential development on NE Glisan Street and some single-dwelling residential development around NE 47th Avenue.
**Zoning:** The parking areas located within the proposed Phase 1 are zoned CN2 (Neighborhood Commercial 2) and R5 (Residential 5,000). The CN2 zone is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. The R5 zone is intended to foster the development of single-dwelling residences on lots having a minimum area of 3,000 square feet. The parking areas are an accessory use to the overall Providence Medical Center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CN2 zone but which represents a Conditional Use in the R5 zone. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 parking areas are zoned CO2 (Office Commercial 2) and R1 (Residential 1,000). The CO2 zone is a low and medium intensity office zone for businesses with a local or regional emphasis. The R1 zone allows multi-dwelling residential development up to a maximum density of one unit per 1,000 square feet of site area. The parking areas are an accessory use to the medical center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CO2 zone and which is a Conditional Use it the R1 zone. Improving nonconforming landscaping and/or delaying required nonconforming upgrades to parking lot landscaping does not require approval through a Conditional Use Review. A site which is approved as a Conditional Use Master Plan is vested in the code at the time the master plan is approved, therefore, the parking area landscaping improvements are required to meet the standards in effect in 2002.
**Land Use History:** City records indicate several prior land use reviews for the site, going back as far as 1939, when the original Providence Hospital building was constructed. The most recent land use cases include the following:
- **LUR 96-00400 UD** - Use Determination allowing the establishment of a Crisis Triage Center at Providence to be operated by Multnomah County;
- **LUR 95-00894 MS CU AD** - Previous Providence Master Plan, approved with conditions in 1996;
- **LUR 95-00865 VA** - Approved Street Vacation request for NE Irving Street between NE 49th and NE 52nd Avenues; and
- **LU 02-120615 CU MS AD** - Current Master Plan for Providence. Case was approved with modifications by City Council after a neighborhood appeal. Master Plan includes various projects over a 10-year period, with several adjustments to development standards.
- **LU 04-064294 AD** – Adjustment approved to increase the height of the “North Tower” building sign for a mechanical equipment and elevator penthouse, and screening.
• LU 07-132791 AD – Adjustment approved to increase area of a sign affixed to the east wall of the new Cancer Center building and oriented only to west-bound motorists on the I-84 freeway from the maximum allowed 50 square-feet to 101 square-feet.
• LU 09-106787 CUMS – Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan review to replace a transportation system related condition of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD with an alternate mitigation plan. All other conditions of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD remain applicable.
Agency Review: A “Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood” was mailed April 30, 2009. The following Bureaus have responded:
• The Bureau of Environmental Services responded with information on sanitary services, stormwater management and water resources. The response notes no objections to the proposal to extend the nonconforming upgrade compliance period until August 2012 and points out that requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual will still apply (Exhibit E-1).
• The Site Development Section of BDS responded with no objections (Exhibit E-2).
• The Life Safety Section of BDS, the Fire, Water and Parks Bureaus as well as the Development Review Section of the Bureau of Transportation all responded with no concerns (Exhibit E-3).
Neighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on April 30, 2009. No written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.
ZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Title 33.805.10 Purpose of Adjustments
The regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations apply city-wide, but because of the city’s diversity, some sites are difficult to develop in compliance with the regulations. The adjustment review process provides a mechanism by which the regulations in the zoning code may be modified if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Adjustments may also be used when strict application of the code’s regulations would preclude all use of the site. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and to allow for alternative ways to meet the purposes of the code, while allowing the zoning code to continue to provide certainty and rapid processing for land use applications.
33.805.40 Adjustment Approval Criteria
Adjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria A. through F. stated below are met.
A. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; and
Findings: The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades required to bring certain medical center parking areas into compliance with current perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping standards until August 2012. The applicant has proposed to phase improvements for the three parking areas. The parking areas near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2010, the parking areas along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue are proposed to be improved by August 2011, and the parking areas near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2012. These parking areas are labeled as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 on the attached site plan. The purpose for regulations regarding upgrades to nonconforming development is listed below:
Purpose 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development
This section is primarily aimed at upgrading nonconforming development elements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings.
The Zoning Code provides for guidance for nonconforming situations and development with an intent to guide future uses and development to eventual conformance. This provides an important perspective on the proposal to delay the nonconforming upgrades for the medical center parking areas - the overall intent of the Zoning Code is not to force the development to be immediately brought into conformance. The proposed phasing plan provides Providence with a reasonable amount of additional time to prepare and budget for the required improvements. Another benefit of the proposed phasing plan is that it allows the work to occur gradually. Closing and improving all three parking areas at once could result in significant impacts to nearby residents and businesses, especially in terms of the availability of on-street parking. Phasing the improvements so that one parking area is improved per year will help minimize potential negative impacts. As the applicant’s narrative states, phasing the parking area improvements rather than doing all improvements at once, reduces “inconvenience for pedestrians, employees and visitors to the medical center”. The applicant’s narrative also points out another reason why delaying the nonconforming improvements may equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation, stating that during today’s economic climate requiring all improvements to occur at once and without delay would not result in the “highest quality of improvements”. Based on this information, it is important to consider that based on the covenant signed with the City with regards to nonconforming upgrades, the required improvements are based on the regulations in place in August of 2004 when the covenant was executed. In order to ensure that this information is properly conveyed through the permitting process a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition clarifies that future improvements must be made to the code in effect at that time or the proposal must receive approval through an applicable land use process.
Based on the information above and the condition of approval, this criterion is met.
B. If in a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, or if in an OS, C, E, or I zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area; and
Findings: The proposals are located in both residential and commercial zones. The proposal to delay and phase required landscaping improvements will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential areas because the parking lots in residential zones already possess some landscaping, especially perimeter landscaping which is most visible from adjacent residentially developed sites and helps provide adequate screening. Phasing the improvements will also help protect livability in the sense that closing and improving all parking lots at once could result in excessive use of on-street parking and inconvenience for nearby residents.
In this location, NE 47th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Community Transit Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street, and a Local Street. Between NE 47th Avenue and NE 52nd Avenue, NE Glisan Street is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Transit Access Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street and a Community Corridor. NE 52nd Avenue is classified as a local street for all classifications. The response from the Bureau of Transportation indicates that the proposal should not conflict with the classifications of the above streets.
This criterion is met.
E. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and
Findings: The applicant adequately mitigates for impacts related to the proposed delay and phasing of the landscaping improvements by proposing a reasonable phasing plan which will help limit impacts on surrounding businesses and residents which could occur if all parking areas were closed and improved at once. The delay and phasing plan also provide Providence an adequate time to prepare and budget for the required improvements which can result in a higher quality of improvements. In order to ensure that the improvements follow the phasing plan proposed by the applicant, a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition states that parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached site plan or receive approval through another Adjustment Review.
C. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone.
D. City designated scenic resources and historic resources are preserved; and
F. If in an environmental zone, the proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on the resources and resource value as is practical.
Findings: Only one adjustment is requested, the site does not contain any identified scenic or historic resources and the site is not located in an environmental zone; therefore, these criterion are not applicable.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Unless specifically required in the approval criteria listed above, this proposal does not have to meet the development standards in order to be approved during this review process. The plans submitted for a building or zoning permit must demonstrate that all development standards of Title 33 can be met, or have received an Adjustment or Modification via a land use review prior to the approval of a building or zoning permit.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant proposes one Adjustment to delay and phase required nonconforming upgrades to several identified medical center parking areas. As noted in this report, the proposal is able to meet the Adjustment approval criteria with approval granted based on the proposed phasing plan which helps limit impacts on neighbors associated with the closing and improving of all parking areas at once. With approval requiring that permit drawings comply with the conditions of approval listed below, the request meets the applicable criteria and should be approved.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Approval of an Adjustment to 33.258.070.2.d to extend the compliance period for phased nonconforming upgrades through August 2012, per the approved site plan, Exhibit C-1, signed and dated May 28, 2009, subject to the following conditions:
A. As part of the building permit application submittal, the following development-related conditions (B through C) must be noted on each of the 4 required site plans or included as a sheet in the numbered set of plans. The sheet on which this information appears must be labeled "ZONING COMPLIANCE PAGE - Case File LU 09-121435 AD." All requirements must be graphically represented on the site plan, landscape, or other required plan and must be labeled "REQUIRED."
B. The identified parking areas are required to be improved to the landscaping standards current at the time of the 2004 covenant (04-035044 PR). Future improvements not associated with the 2004 covenant must be made to the standards in effect at that time or receive approval through an Adjustment Review or other applicable City land use process.
C. Parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached <cursor_is_here>
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttp://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/248063\n</url>\n<text>\nNOTICE OF A TYPE II DECISION ON A PROPOSAL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD\n\nThe Bureau of Development Services has approved a proposal in your neighborhood. The reasons for the decision are included in this notice. If you disagree with the decision, you can appeal it and request a public hearing. Information on how to appeal this decision is listed at the end of this notice.\n\nCASE FILE NUMBER: LU 09-121435 AD\n\nGENERAL INFORMATION\n\nApplicant: Michael C Robinson\nPerkins Coie LLP\n1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor\nPortland OR 97209\n\nOwner Representatives: Dana White and Glenda Fossum-Smith\nProvidence Health System Oregon\n1235 NE 47th Avenue, Suite 160\nPortland OR 97213\n\nSite Address: 4805 NE GLISAN ST\n\nLegal Description: BLOCK 1 LOT 12, BELGRADE; BLOCK 1 LOT 13, BELGRADE;\nBLOCK 2 LOT 12, BELGRADE; LOT 13-18 BLOCK 2, BELGRADE;\nEXC PT IN HWY-INC PT VAC ST LOT 5&6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3400 LOT 2&3&4 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; TL 3500 BLOCK 2,\nCENTER ADD; TL 3200 LOT 2-6 BLOCK 1, CENTER ADD; BLOCK 3\nLOT 1-7 INC PT VAC ST LOT 20-26 EXC PT IN ST, CENTER ADD;\nBLOCK 3 LOT 8-13 INC PT VAC ST LOT 15-19, CENTER ADD;\nBLOCK 5 LOT 1 EXC PT IN STS E 1/2 OF LOT 2 EXC PT IN ST,\nCENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST W 1/2 OF LOT 2 BLOCK 5,\nCENTER ADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 3 BLOCK 5, CENTER\nADD; EXC PT IN E GLISAN ST LOT 1&2 BLOCK 6, CENTER ADD;\nBLOCK 6 LOT 3-5 EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 EXC PT IN STS, CENTER\nADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 6 BLOCK 6, CANCEL INTO R130648 /\nCENTER ADD; N 34' OF E 30' OF LOT 11 BLOCK 6 N 34' OF LOT 12\nBLOCK 6, CENTER ADD; EXC PT IN ST LOT 1 BLOCK 2, CENTER\nADD ANX; LOT 2 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 3 BLOCK 2,\nCENTER ADD ANX; LOT 5&6 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT\nIN E GLISAN ST LOT 7-9 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN E\nGLISAN ST LOT 10 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; EXC PT IN ST LOT\n\n11 BLOCK 2 EXC PT IN STS LOT 12 BLOCK 2, CENTER ADD ANX; LOT 1 EXC PT IN ST LOT 2, FOSTER; BLOCK 4 LOT 1-4, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 6, MAPLE HILL PL; BLOCK 4 LOT 5, MAPLE HILL PL; W 50.69' OF LOT 2 BLOCK 3 E 15.31' OF LOT 3 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; LOT 17&18 BLOCK 3, NORTH LAURELHURST; TL 17200 1.85 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 4200 1.80 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4100 9.54 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4000 0.23 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 2800 3.53 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 3600 0.41 ACRES, SECTION 31 1N 2E; TL 17100 0.02 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; TL 4300 0.27 ACRES, SECTION 31 1 N 2 E; LOT 21, FOSTER\n\nTax Account No.: R063800120, R063800130, R063800320, R063800330, R145800010, R145800030, R145800070, R145800090, R145800270, R145800340, R145800700, R145800720, R145800730, R145800830, R145800850, R145800880, R145800960, R146000290, R146000310, R146000330, R146000390, R146000410, R146000470, R146000490, R293500010, R533200340, R533200380, R533200420, R612100700, R612100910, R942310070, R942312630, R942310140, R942311020, R942311320, R942312620, R942312700, R942310090, R293500410\n\nQuarter Section: 2935\n\nNeighborhood: North Tabor, contact Sean Besso at 503-806-9014\n\nNeighborhoods within 1,000 feet of the site:\nHollywood, contact Trudi Rahija at 503-281-5504\nLaurelhurst, contact Gary Naylor at 503-232-3398\nRose City Park, contact Ed Gorman at 503-425-1611\n\nBusiness Districts within 1,000 feet of the site:\nHollywood Boosters, contact Jeffrey Baird at 503-249-8787\n\nDistrict Coalition: Southeast Uplift, contact Lea Hyman at 503-232-0010\n\nDistrict Coalition within 1,000 feet of the site:\nCentral Northeast Neighbors, contact Alison Stoll at 503-823-3156\n\nPlan District: A portion of the site is within the Hollywood Plan District-Subdistrict A\n\nZoning: R1, R5, C02, CN2 (Multi-Dwelling Residential 1,000, Single-Dwelling Residential 5,000, Office Commercial 2, Neighborhood Commercial 2)\n\nCase Type: AD (Adjustment)\nProcedure: Type II, an administrative decision with appeal to the Adjustment Committee.\n\nProposal:\nAs part of a previous building permit, Providence Health System Oregon was required to improve certain site-related development to meet current standards of the Portland Zoning Code. As allowed under Section 33.258.070.2.d, the property owner executed a covenant with the City of Portland to complete the required improvements during a 5-year period of time. This 5-year time period expires on August 5, 2009. Required improvements include interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping for several Providence Health System Oregon surface parking lots. Citing the need to properly phase the improvement projects and the economic expense of completing all projects at once, the applicant requests an Adjustment to extend the compliance period. The phasing proposal submitted by the applicant calls for completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street by August\n\n2010, completing improvements to parking lots along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue by August 2011, and completing improvements to parking lots near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street by August 2012. The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades until August 2012.\n\n**Relevant Approval Criteria:**\nIn order to be approved, this proposal must comply with the approval criteria of 33.805.040 A-F, Adjustments.\n\n**ANALYSIS**\n\n**Site and Vicinity:** For the purposes of this review two site areas exist, the Master Plan site and the Project site. The Master Plan site represents the boundaries of the Providence Health System master plan boundary – generally speaking the areas south of I-84 on the attached zoning map which are under Providence Health System ownership. The Project site represents the three parking areas shown on the attached site plan and identified as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Overall, these parking areas have some perimeter parking lot landscaping but relatively little interior parking lot landscaping. The vicinity surrounding the Project site is primarily composed of institutional development associated with Providence Health System, commercial and multi-dwelling residential development on NE Glisan Street and some single-dwelling residential development around NE 47th Avenue.\n\n**Zoning:** The parking areas located within the proposed Phase 1 are zoned CN2 (Neighborhood Commercial 2) and R5 (Residential 5,000). The CN2 zone is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. The R5 zone is intended to foster the development of single-dwelling residences on lots having a minimum area of 3,000 square feet. The parking areas are an accessory use to the overall Providence Medical Center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CN2 zone but which represents a Conditional Use in the R5 zone. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 parking areas are zoned CO2 (Office Commercial 2) and R1 (Residential 1,000). The CO2 zone is a low and medium intensity office zone for businesses with a local or regional emphasis. The R1 zone allows multi-dwelling residential development up to a maximum density of one unit per 1,000 square feet of site area. The parking areas are an accessory use to the medical center use in the area which is allowed by right in the CO2 zone and which is a Conditional Use it the R1 zone. Improving nonconforming landscaping and/or delaying required nonconforming upgrades to parking lot landscaping does not require approval through a Conditional Use Review. A site which is approved as a Conditional Use Master Plan is vested in the code at the time the master plan is approved, therefore, the parking area landscaping improvements are required to meet the standards in effect in 2002.\n\n**Land Use History:** City records indicate several prior land use reviews for the site, going back as far as 1939, when the original Providence Hospital building was constructed. The most recent land use cases include the following:\n\n- **LUR 96-00400 UD** - Use Determination allowing the establishment of a Crisis Triage Center at Providence to be operated by Multnomah County;\n- **LUR 95-00894 MS CU AD** - Previous Providence Master Plan, approved with conditions in 1996;\n- **LUR 95-00865 VA** - Approved Street Vacation request for NE Irving Street between NE 49th and NE 52nd Avenues; and\n- **LU 02-120615 CU MS AD** - Current Master Plan for Providence. Case was approved with modifications by City Council after a neighborhood appeal. Master Plan includes various projects over a 10-year period, with several adjustments to development standards.\n- **LU 04-064294 AD** – Adjustment approved to increase the height of the “North Tower” building sign for a mechanical equipment and elevator penthouse, and screening.\n\n• LU 07-132791 AD – Adjustment approved to increase area of a sign affixed to the east wall of the new Cancer Center building and oriented only to west-bound motorists on the I-84 freeway from the maximum allowed 50 square-feet to 101 square-feet.\n\n• LU 09-106787 CUMS – Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan review to replace a transportation system related condition of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD with an alternate mitigation plan. All other conditions of approval required as part of LU 02-120615 CUMS AD remain applicable.\n\nAgency Review: A “Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood” was mailed April 30, 2009. The following Bureaus have responded:\n• The Bureau of Environmental Services responded with information on sanitary services, stormwater management and water resources. The response notes no objections to the proposal to extend the nonconforming upgrade compliance period until August 2012 and points out that requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual will still apply (Exhibit E-1).\n• The Site Development Section of BDS responded with no objections (Exhibit E-2).\n• The Life Safety Section of BDS, the Fire, Water and Parks Bureaus as well as the Development Review Section of the Bureau of Transportation all responded with no concerns (Exhibit E-3).\n\nNeighborhood Review: A Notice of Proposal in Your Neighborhood was mailed on April 30, 2009. No written responses have been received from either the Neighborhood Association or notified property owners in response to the proposal.\n\nZONING CODE APPROVAL CRITERIA\n\nTitle 33.805.10 Purpose of Adjustments\nThe regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations apply city-wide, but because of the city’s diversity, some sites are difficult to develop in compliance with the regulations. The adjustment review process provides a mechanism by which the regulations in the zoning code may be modified if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations. Adjustments may also be used when strict application of the code’s regulations would preclude all use of the site. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and to allow for alternative ways to meet the purposes of the code, while allowing the zoning code to continue to provide certainty and rapid processing for land use applications.\n\n33.805.40 Adjustment Approval Criteria\nAdjustment requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria A. through F. stated below are met.\n\nA. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; and\n\nFindings: The applicant requests one Adjustment to extend the compliance period for nonconforming upgrades required to bring certain medical center parking areas into compliance with current perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping standards until August 2012. The applicant has proposed to phase improvements for the three parking areas. The parking areas near the intersection of NE 47th and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2010, the parking areas along NE Glisan Street between NE 47th Avenue and NE 49th Avenue are proposed to be improved by August 2011, and the parking areas near the intersection of NE 52nd Avenue and NE Glisan Street are proposed to be improved by August 2012. These parking areas are labeled as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 on the attached site plan. The purpose for regulations regarding upgrades to nonconforming development is listed below:\n\nPurpose 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development\n\nThis section is primarily aimed at upgrading nonconforming development elements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings.\n\nThe Zoning Code provides for guidance for nonconforming situations and development with an intent to guide future uses and development to eventual conformance. This provides an important perspective on the proposal to delay the nonconforming upgrades for the medical center parking areas - the overall intent of the Zoning Code is not to force the development to be immediately brought into conformance. The proposed phasing plan provides Providence with a reasonable amount of additional time to prepare and budget for the required improvements. Another benefit of the proposed phasing plan is that it allows the work to occur gradually. Closing and improving all three parking areas at once could result in significant impacts to nearby residents and businesses, especially in terms of the availability of on-street parking. Phasing the improvements so that one parking area is improved per year will help minimize potential negative impacts. As the applicant’s narrative states, phasing the parking area improvements rather than doing all improvements at once, reduces “inconvenience for pedestrians, employees and visitors to the medical center”. The applicant’s narrative also points out another reason why delaying the nonconforming improvements may equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation, stating that during today’s economic climate requiring all improvements to occur at once and without delay would not result in the “highest quality of improvements”. Based on this information, it is important to consider that based on the covenant signed with the City with regards to nonconforming upgrades, the required improvements are based on the regulations in place in August of 2004 when the covenant was executed. In order to ensure that this information is properly conveyed through the permitting process a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition clarifies that future improvements must be made to the code in effect at that time or the proposal must receive approval through an applicable land use process.\n\nBased on the information above and the condition of approval, this criterion is met.\n\nB. If in a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, or if in an OS, C, E, or I zone, the proposal will be consistent with the classifications of the adjacent streets and the desired character of the area; and\n\nFindings: The proposals are located in both residential and commercial zones. The proposal to delay and phase required landscaping improvements will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential areas because the parking lots in residential zones already possess some landscaping, especially perimeter landscaping which is most visible from adjacent residentially developed sites and helps provide adequate screening. Phasing the improvements will also help protect livability in the sense that closing and improving all parking lots at once could result in excessive use of on-street parking and inconvenience for nearby residents.\n\nIn this location, NE 47th Avenue is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Community Transit Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street, and a Local Street. Between NE 47th Avenue and NE 52nd Avenue, NE Glisan Street is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, a Transit Access Street, a City Bikeway, a City Walkway, a Local Service Truck Street, a Minor Emergency Response Street and a Community Corridor. NE 52nd Avenue is classified as a local street for all classifications. The response from the Bureau of Transportation indicates that the proposal should not conflict with the classifications of the above streets.\n\nThis criterion is met.\n\nE. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and\n\nFindings: The applicant adequately mitigates for impacts related to the proposed delay and phasing of the landscaping improvements by proposing a reasonable phasing plan which will help limit impacts on surrounding businesses and residents which could occur if all parking areas were closed and improved at once. The delay and phasing plan also provide Providence an adequate time to prepare and budget for the required improvements which can result in a higher quality of improvements. In order to ensure that the improvements follow the phasing plan proposed by the applicant, a condition of approval has been added to this review. The condition states that parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached site plan or receive approval through another Adjustment Review.\n\nC. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone.\n\nD. City designated scenic resources and historic resources are preserved; and\n\nF. If in an environmental zone, the proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on the resources and resource value as is practical.\n\nFindings: Only one adjustment is requested, the site does not contain any identified scenic or historic resources and the site is not located in an environmental zone; therefore, these criterion are not applicable.\n\nDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS\n\nUnless specifically required in the approval criteria listed above, this proposal does not have to meet the development standards in order to be approved during this review process. The plans submitted for a building or zoning permit must demonstrate that all development standards of Title 33 can be met, or have received an Adjustment or Modification via a land use review prior to the approval of a building or zoning permit.\n\nCONCLUSIONS\n\nThe applicant proposes one Adjustment to delay and phase required nonconforming upgrades to several identified medical center parking areas. As noted in this report, the proposal is able to meet the Adjustment approval criteria with approval granted based on the proposed phasing plan which helps limit impacts on neighbors associated with the closing and improving of all parking areas at once. With approval requiring that permit drawings comply with the conditions of approval listed below, the request meets the applicable criteria and should be approved.\n\nADMINISTRATIVE DECISION\n\nApproval of an Adjustment to 33.258.070.2.d to extend the compliance period for phased nonconforming upgrades through August 2012, per the approved site plan, Exhibit C-1, signed and dated May 28, 2009, subject to the following conditions:\n\nA. As part of the building permit application submittal, the following development-related conditions (B through C) must be noted on each of the 4 required site plans or included as a sheet in the numbered set of plans. The sheet on which this information appears must be labeled \"ZONING COMPLIANCE PAGE - Case File LU 09-121435 AD.\" All requirements must be graphically represented on the site plan, landscape, or other required plan and must be labeled \"REQUIRED.\"\n\nB. The identified parking areas are required to be improved to the landscaping standards current at the time of the 2004 covenant (04-035044 PR). Future improvements not associated with the 2004 covenant must be made to the standards in effect at that time or receive approval through an Adjustment Review or other applicable City land use process.\n\nC. Parking area improvements associated with required nonconforming upgrades must follow the phasing plan identified on the attached <cursor_is_here>\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "site plan or a modified phasing plan must receive approval through another Adjustment Review.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 619,789,454
|
eng_Latn
| 0.778518
|
eng_Latn
| 0.99074
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"sco_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
1789,
4748,
8671,
12285,
16483,
20079,
23208,
27406,
29321,
29468
] |
|
To a layman the term green conjures up images of green meadows, gushing streams of crystal clear water, clean uncontaminated air and dense forests. But for the true experts of fine liquor the word green connotes a different meaning. Connoisseurs of liquor associate the phrase green to the legendary alcoholic drink absinthe. Absinthe liquor was the most well-liked drink of nineteenth century Europe. It was also passionately known as the Green fairy by loyal devotees.
The French latched onto this liquor and very soon it rivaled wine in level of popularity. Even now people display an amazing affection to this anise-flavored drink. The aura that absinthe liquor has, besides the flavor, can be due to the history and the elaborate ceremonial ritual that should be followed while drinking it. Absinthe has a bitter taste that can be associated with its basic ingredients such as wormwood, fennel, and anise. Absinthe liquor has high alcohol content usually in the range of 60% to 70%. Such high proof is necessary to maintain the natural green color of the drink.
Absinthe is not your everyday drink like whisky. It is a drink with illustrious history and culture behind it. Absinthe had become so well liked in France and Europe that wine makers were worried about their business prospects. This intense competition led wine makers to spread rumours and stories regarding the damaging effects of absinthe. A few of the unverified claims made during that time resulted in most countries banning absinthe.
However, by the start of the twenty-first century most countries in the European Union began lifting the unjust ban on absinthe. Today, absinthe is no longer disallowed Europe and the day is not far when it will recover its rightful place as the best and greatest liquor of all times. The pleasant effects of absinthe can be attributed to its ingredients. Wormwood is the main herb utilized in the making of absinthe. Wormwood includes a chemical called thujone which is a brain stimulant. The allowable amount of thujone in absinthe in the US is 10 mg and 35 mg in Europe.
Absinthe has high alcohol content and it must not be ingested in excess; three portions of absinthe is sufficient to feel the absinthe effect. The effect is pleasant and you’re feeling slightly inebriated there is however a feeling of clarity that your mind experiences. The colors surrounding you seem brighter than they usually do, you can see, smell, and taste much better. Your sense of perception is increased and even everyday chores seem to give you a new experience. This property of absinthe was answerable for its immense attraction to artists. Many a fantastic painters like Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were avid buyers of absinthe and linked their creative genius to its wonderful effects.
Thankfully, most Europeans have accessibility to absinthe. US citizens may now buy absinthe on the internet from non-US producers. US citizens may also order genuine absinthe kits and prepare their very own absinthe liquor through using the simple instructions that come along with the kit. To learn more about absinthe kits and other absinthe merchandise visit absinthekit.com.
|
<urn:uuid:56dc2c27-f89f-481f-970b-017574c8efdc>
|
CC-MAIN-2019-43
|
http://free-label-maker.com/absinthe/absinthe-liquor-3/
|
2019-10-15T19:15:07Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-43/segments/1570986660231.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20191015182235-20191015205735-00214.warc.gz
|
en
| 0.957499
| 674
|
To a layman the term green conjures up images of green meadows, gushing streams of crystal clear water, clean uncontaminated air and dense forests. But for the true experts of fine liquor the word green connotes a different meaning. Connoisseurs of liquor associate the phrase green to the legendary alcoholic drink absinthe. Absinthe liquor was the most well-liked drink of nineteenth century Europe. It was also passionately known as the Green fairy by loyal devotees.
The French latched onto this liquor and very soon it rivaled wine in level of pop
|
ularity.
|
Even now people display an amazing affection to this anise-flavored drink. The aura that absinthe liquor has, besides the flavor, can be due to the history and the elaborate ceremonial ritual that should be followed while drinking it. Absinthe has a bitter taste that can be associated with its basic ingredients such as wormwood, fennel, and anise. Absinthe liquor has high alcohol content usually in the range of 60% to 70%. Such high proof is necessary to maintain the natural green color of the drink.
Absinthe is not your everyday drink like whisky. It is a drink with illustrious history and culture behind it. Absinthe had become so well liked in France and Europe that wine makers were worried about their business prospects. This intense competition led wine makers to spread rumours and stories regarding the damaging effects of absinthe. A few of the unverified claims made during that time resulted in most countries banning absinthe.
However, by the start of the twenty-first century most countries in the European Union began lifting the unjust ban on absinthe. Today, absinthe is no longer disallowed Europe and the day is not far when it will recover its rightful place as the best and greatest liquor of all times. The pleasant effects of absinthe can be attributed to its ingredients. Wormwood is the main herb utilized in the making of absinthe. Wormwood includes a chemical called thujone which is a brain stimulant. The allowable amount of thujone in absinthe in the US is 10 mg and 35 mg in Europe.
Absinthe has high alcohol content and it must not be ingested in excess; three portions of absinthe is sufficient to feel the absinthe effect. The effect is pleasant and you’re feeling slightly inebriated there is however a feeling of clarity that your mind experiences. The colors surrounding you seem brighter than they usually do, you can see, smell, and taste much better. Your sense of perception is increased and even everyday chores seem to give you a new experience. This property of absinthe was answerable for its immense attraction to artists. Many a fantastic painters like Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were avid buyers of absinthe and linked their creative genius to its wonderful effects.
Thankfully, most Europeans have accessibility to absinthe. US citizens may now buy absinthe on the internet from non-US producers. US citizens may also order genuine absinthe kits and prepare their very own absinthe liquor through using the simple instructions that come along with the kit. To learn more about absinthe kits and other absinthe merchandise visit absinthekit.com.
| 552
|
inside_word
|
popularity.
|
remove_one_sentence
|
<url>
http://free-label-maker.com/absinthe/absinthe-liquor-3/
</url>
<text>
To a layman the term green conjures up images of green meadows, gushing streams of crystal clear water, clean uncontaminated air and dense forests. But for the true experts of fine liquor the word green connotes a different meaning. Connoisseurs of liquor associate the phrase green to the legendary alcoholic drink absinthe. Absinthe liquor was the most well-liked drink of nineteenth century Europe. It was also passionately known as the Green fairy by loyal devotees.
The French latched onto this liquor and very soon it rivaled wine in level of pop<cursor_is_here> Even now people display an amazing affection to this anise-flavored drink. The aura that absinthe liquor has, besides the flavor, can be due to the history and the elaborate ceremonial ritual that should be followed while drinking it. Absinthe has a bitter taste that can be associated with its basic ingredients such as wormwood, fennel, and anise. Absinthe liquor has high alcohol content usually in the range of 60% to 70%. Such high proof is necessary to maintain the natural green color of the drink.
Absinthe is not your everyday drink like whisky. It is a drink with illustrious history and culture behind it. Absinthe had become so well liked in France and Europe that wine makers were worried about their business prospects. This intense competition led wine makers to spread rumours and stories regarding the damaging effects of absinthe. A few of the unverified claims made during that time resulted in most countries banning absinthe.
However, by the start of the twenty-first century most countries in the European Union began lifting the unjust ban on absinthe. Today, absinthe is no longer disallowed Europe and the day is not far when it will recover its rightful place as the best and greatest liquor of all times. The pleasant effects of absinthe can be attributed to its ingredients. Wormwood is the main herb utilized in the making of absinthe. Wormwood includes a chemical called thujone which is a brain stimulant. The allowable amount of thujone in absinthe in the US is 10 mg and 35 mg in Europe.
Absinthe has high alcohol content and it must not be ingested in excess; three portions of absinthe is sufficient to feel the absinthe effect. The effect is pleasant and you’re feeling slightly inebriated there is however a feeling of clarity that your mind experiences. The colors surrounding you seem brighter than they usually do, you can see, smell, and taste much better. Your sense of perception is increased and even everyday chores seem to give you a new experience. This property of absinthe was answerable for its immense attraction to artists. Many a fantastic painters like Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were avid buyers of absinthe and linked their creative genius to its wonderful effects.
Thankfully, most Europeans have accessibility to absinthe. US citizens may now buy absinthe on the internet from non-US producers. US citizens may also order genuine absinthe kits and prepare their very own absinthe liquor through using the simple instructions that come along with the kit. To learn more about absinthe kits and other absinthe merchandise visit absinthekit.com.
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttp://free-label-maker.com/absinthe/absinthe-liquor-3/\n</url>\n<text>\nTo a layman the term green conjures up images of green meadows, gushing streams of crystal clear water, clean uncontaminated air and dense forests. But for the true experts of fine liquor the word green connotes a different meaning. Connoisseurs of liquor associate the phrase green to the legendary alcoholic drink absinthe. Absinthe liquor was the most well-liked drink of nineteenth century Europe. It was also passionately known as the Green fairy by loyal devotees.\nThe French latched onto this liquor and very soon it rivaled wine in level of pop<cursor_is_here> Even now people display an amazing affection to this anise-flavored drink. The aura that absinthe liquor has, besides the flavor, can be due to the history and the elaborate ceremonial ritual that should be followed while drinking it. Absinthe has a bitter taste that can be associated with its basic ingredients such as wormwood, fennel, and anise. Absinthe liquor has high alcohol content usually in the range of 60% to 70%. Such high proof is necessary to maintain the natural green color of the drink.\nAbsinthe is not your everyday drink like whisky. It is a drink with illustrious history and culture behind it. Absinthe had become so well liked in France and Europe that wine makers were worried about their business prospects. This intense competition led wine makers to spread rumours and stories regarding the damaging effects of absinthe. A few of the unverified claims made during that time resulted in most countries banning absinthe.\nHowever, by the start of the twenty-first century most countries in the European Union began lifting the unjust ban on absinthe. Today, absinthe is no longer disallowed Europe and the day is not far when it will recover its rightful place as the best and greatest liquor of all times. The pleasant effects of absinthe can be attributed to its ingredients. Wormwood is the main herb utilized in the making of absinthe. Wormwood includes a chemical called thujone which is a brain stimulant. The allowable amount of thujone in absinthe in the US is 10 mg and 35 mg in Europe.\nAbsinthe has high alcohol content and it must not be ingested in excess; three portions of absinthe is sufficient to feel the absinthe effect. The effect is pleasant and you’re feeling slightly inebriated there is however a feeling of clarity that your mind experiences. The colors surrounding you seem brighter than they usually do, you can see, smell, and taste much better. Your sense of perception is increased and even everyday chores seem to give you a new experience. This property of absinthe was answerable for its immense attraction to artists. Many a fantastic painters like Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were avid buyers of absinthe and linked their creative genius to its wonderful effects.\nThankfully, most Europeans have accessibility to absinthe. US citizens may now buy absinthe on the internet from non-US producers. US citizens may also order genuine absinthe kits and prepare their very own absinthe liquor through using the simple instructions that come along with the kit. To learn more about absinthe kits and other absinthe merchandise visit absinthekit.com.\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "ularity.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
We loved this deal too, but it's no longer available. Check out our other cool deals here.
$79 for 10 Yoga Classes (value $169)
1 of your friends
already grabbed this deal:
- Improve your mental and physical state with a relaxing and re-energising exercise.
- Grab 10 yoga classes at FIt Yoga for $79.
- Learn from an experienced qualified lyengar and hatha teacher - Lucinda Sherratt.
- Feel healthy, balanced and happy.
Not everyone is born with the discipline of a monk, in fact, we'd wager many of you struggle to get out the door on time every morning. If you're after a way to become more disciplined then enjoy a great exercise that'll teach you just that (and hopefully translate to other parts of your life too).
Pay $79 for 10 yoga classes at FIT Yoga and treat your body, mind and soul with a healthy and fun form of exercise.
After several years of living, training and working both overseas and in Auckland, your teacher Lucinda Sherratt is back and ready to introduce the art of yoga to you. Lucinda studies under Melodie Batchelor, one of two of the most senior Iyengar teachers in New Zealand. With diplomas in Hatha Yoga (NZQA accredited) and Clinical Nutrition, she is the perfect teacher for any willing pupil.
A combination of Hatha and Iyengar yoga will help you to relax and re-energise; giving you greater physical strength and enhancing your mental focus, emotional balance and general sense of wellbeing. Lucinda is committed to sharing her knowledge and helping to improve your mental and physical state.
More Great Local Deals
Central Otago Cherry Team
Deals in Other Regions
Getting more bang for your buck
GrabOne’s Voucher Guarantee means missing out on claiming your deal in time no longer means losing out altogether!
How does it work?
- A voucher is valid up to and including the expiry date stated.
- If you don't use your voucher before that date for whatever reason, it can still be used towards that service with that business for an additional 30 days.
For example, if you buy a bungy jump deal but don’t use it before the expiry date, you can still use the amount you paid for the voucher towards a bungy jump, for another 30 days.
A few things to note:
- The GrabOne Voucher Guarantee does not apply to product deals, travel and accommodation-related deals, or time-dependent event deals.
- It's always best to use your voucher before the expiry date, so you get the most value for your money. And if you're a bit forgetful, we now automatically remind you if your vouchers are about to expire.
- During the extended Voucher Guarantee period, your voucher can only be put towards the service stated on the voucher.
- If the offer is seasonal, like a seasonal menu or chimney sweep service, the Voucher Guarantee can be put towards a similar offer at the merchant's discretion.
- The conditions on your voucher still apply during the Voucher Guarantee period.
|
<urn:uuid:f4cd397f-9944-487f-9c79-fde48d6e5f6a>
|
CC-MAIN-2016-50
|
http://www.grabone.co.nz/hawkes-bay/fresh-integrative-therapy?recent=missed&no_legacy_hybrid_redirect=1
|
2016-12-03T13:55:10Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2016-50/segments/1480698540932.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20161202170900-00490-ip-10-31-129-80.ec2.internal.warc.gz
|
en
| 0.925076
| 674
|
We loved this deal too, but it's no longer available. Check out our other cool deals here.
$79 for 10 Yoga Classes (value $169)
1 of your friends
already grabbed this deal:
- Improve your mental and physical state with a relaxing and re-energising exercise.
- Grab 10 yoga classes at FIt Yoga for $79.
- Learn from an experienced qualified lyengar and hatha teacher - Lucinda Sherratt.
- Feel healthy, balanced and happy.
Not everyone is born with the discipline of a monk, in fact, we'd wager many of you struggle to get out the door on time every morning. If you're after a way to become more disciplined then enjoy a great exercise that'll teach you just that (and hopefully translate to other parts of your life too).
Pay $79 for 10 yoga classes at FIT Yoga and treat your body, mind and soul with a healthy and fun form of exercise.
After several years of living, training and working both overseas and in Auckland, your teacher Lucinda Sherratt is back and ready to introduce the art of yoga to you. Lucinda studies under Melodie Batchelor, one of two of the most senior Iyengar teachers in New Zealand. With diplomas in Hatha Yoga (NZQA accredited) and Clinical Nutrition, she is the perfect teacher for any willing pupil.
A combination of Hatha and Iyengar yoga will help you to relax and re-energise; giving you greater physical strength and enhancing your mental focus, emotional balance and general sense of wellbeing. Lucinda is committed to sharing her knowledge and helping to improve your mental and physical state.
More Great Local Deals
Central Otago Cherry Team
Deals in Other Regions
Getting more bang for your buck
GrabOne’s Voucher Guarantee means missing out
|
on claiming your deal in time no longer means losing out altogether!
|
How does it work?
- A voucher is valid up to and including the expiry date stated.
- If you don't use your voucher before that date for whatever reason, it can still be used towards that service with that business for an additional 30 days.
For example, if you buy a bungy jump deal but don’t use it before the expiry date, you can still use the amount you paid for the voucher towards a bungy jump, for another 30 days.
A few things to note:
- The GrabOne Voucher Guarantee does not apply to product deals, travel and accommodation-related deals, or time-dependent event deals.
- It's always best to use your voucher before the expiry date, so you get the most value for your money. And if you're a bit forgetful, we now automatically remind you if your vouchers are about to expire.
- During the extended Voucher Guarantee period, your voucher can only be put towards the service stated on the voucher.
- If the offer is seasonal, like a seasonal menu or chimney sweep service, the Voucher Guarantee can be put towards a similar offer at the merchant's discretion.
- The conditions on your voucher still apply during the Voucher Guarantee period.
| 1,681
|
inside_word
|
on
|
remove_one_sentence
|
<url>
http://www.grabone.co.nz/hawkes-bay/fresh-integrative-therapy?recent=missed&no_legacy_hybrid_redirect=1
</url>
<text>
We loved this deal too, but it's no longer available. Check out our other cool deals here.
$79 for 10 Yoga Classes (value $169)
1 of your friends
already grabbed this deal:
- Improve your mental and physical state with a relaxing and re-energising exercise.
- Grab 10 yoga classes at FIt Yoga for $79.
- Learn from an experienced qualified lyengar and hatha teacher - Lucinda Sherratt.
- Feel healthy, balanced and happy.
Not everyone is born with the discipline of a monk, in fact, we'd wager many of you struggle to get out the door on time every morning. If you're after a way to become more disciplined then enjoy a great exercise that'll teach you just that (and hopefully translate to other parts of your life too).
Pay $79 for 10 yoga classes at FIT Yoga and treat your body, mind and soul with a healthy and fun form of exercise.
After several years of living, training and working both overseas and in Auckland, your teacher Lucinda Sherratt is back and ready to introduce the art of yoga to you. Lucinda studies under Melodie Batchelor, one of two of the most senior Iyengar teachers in New Zealand. With diplomas in Hatha Yoga (NZQA accredited) and Clinical Nutrition, she is the perfect teacher for any willing pupil.
A combination of Hatha and Iyengar yoga will help you to relax and re-energise; giving you greater physical strength and enhancing your mental focus, emotional balance and general sense of wellbeing. Lucinda is committed to sharing her knowledge and helping to improve your mental and physical state.
More Great Local Deals
Central Otago Cherry Team
Deals in Other Regions
Getting more bang for your buck
GrabOne’s Voucher Guarantee means missing out <cursor_is_here>
How does it work?
- A voucher is valid up to and including the expiry date stated.
- If you don't use your voucher before that date for whatever reason, it can still be used towards that service with that business for an additional 30 days.
For example, if you buy a bungy jump deal but don’t use it before the expiry date, you can still use the amount you paid for the voucher towards a bungy jump, for another 30 days.
A few things to note:
- The GrabOne Voucher Guarantee does not apply to product deals, travel and accommodation-related deals, or time-dependent event deals.
- It's always best to use your voucher before the expiry date, so you get the most value for your money. And if you're a bit forgetful, we now automatically remind you if your vouchers are about to expire.
- During the extended Voucher Guarantee period, your voucher can only be put towards the service stated on the voucher.
- If the offer is seasonal, like a seasonal menu or chimney sweep service, the Voucher Guarantee can be put towards a similar offer at the merchant's discretion.
- The conditions on your voucher still apply during the Voucher Guarantee period.
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttp://www.grabone.co.nz/hawkes-bay/fresh-integrative-therapy?recent=missed&no_legacy_hybrid_redirect=1\n</url>\n<text>\nWe loved this deal too, but it's no longer available. Check out our other cool deals here.\n$79 for 10 Yoga Classes (value $169)\n1 of your friends\nalready grabbed this deal:\n- Improve your mental and physical state with a relaxing and re-energising exercise.\n- Grab 10 yoga classes at FIt Yoga for $79.\n- Learn from an experienced qualified lyengar and hatha teacher - Lucinda Sherratt.\n- Feel healthy, balanced and happy.\nNot everyone is born with the discipline of a monk, in fact, we'd wager many of you struggle to get out the door on time every morning. If you're after a way to become more disciplined then enjoy a great exercise that'll teach you just that (and hopefully translate to other parts of your life too).\nPay $79 for 10 yoga classes at FIT Yoga and treat your body, mind and soul with a healthy and fun form of exercise.\nAfter several years of living, training and working both overseas and in Auckland, your teacher Lucinda Sherratt is back and ready to introduce the art of yoga to you. Lucinda studies under Melodie Batchelor, one of two of the most senior Iyengar teachers in New Zealand. With diplomas in Hatha Yoga (NZQA accredited) and Clinical Nutrition, she is the perfect teacher for any willing pupil.\nA combination of Hatha and Iyengar yoga will help you to relax and re-energise; giving you greater physical strength and enhancing your mental focus, emotional balance and general sense of wellbeing. Lucinda is committed to sharing her knowledge and helping to improve your mental and physical state.\nMore Great Local Deals\nCentral Otago Cherry Team\nDeals in Other Regions\nGetting more bang for your buck\nGrabOne’s Voucher Guarantee means missing out <cursor_is_here>\nHow does it work?\n- A voucher is valid up to and including the expiry date stated.\n- If you don't use your voucher before that date for whatever reason, it can still be used towards that service with that business for an additional 30 days.\nFor example, if you buy a bungy jump deal but don’t use it before the expiry date, you can still use the amount you paid for the voucher towards a bungy jump, for another 30 days.\nA few things to note:\n- The GrabOne Voucher Guarantee does not apply to product deals, travel and accommodation-related deals, or time-dependent event deals.\n- It's always best to use your voucher before the expiry date, so you get the most value for your money. And if you're a bit forgetful, we now automatically remind you if your vouchers are about to expire.\n- During the extended Voucher Guarantee period, your voucher can only be put towards the service stated on the voucher.\n- If the offer is seasonal, like a seasonal menu or chimney sweep service, the Voucher Guarantee can be put towards a similar offer at the merchant's discretion.\n- The conditions on your voucher still apply during the Voucher Guarantee period.\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "on claiming your deal in time no longer means losing out altogether!",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
Sporty Bump Pregnancy Fitness Clothing- Limited Stock
Just arrived on the website.limited stocks of Sporty Bump Maternity Fitness Clothing
A capsule range of Pregnancy Fitness Tops and Bottoms
See also a few end of lines Blooming Marvellous Pregnancy Sportswear pieces
Exercise during pregnancy is good for you and your baby. The NHS has to say : The more active and fit you are during pregnancy, the easier it will be for you to adapt to your changing shape and weight gain. It will also help you to cope with your labour and get back into shape after the birth.
Exercise with caution of course and be certain to take time to read the NHS guidelines on pregnancy.
Be aware that there are also a few things you should avoid.
It is more than essential that you wear the right gear when doing your pregnancy workout. Sporty Bump came up with this range to ensure breathable comfort and the right level of support and stretch for you and your growing baby bump
Check out the lines we have today and get your fitness on!! NEW ARRIVALS
|
<urn:uuid:e3f365ea-9fc4-4b66-a455-00a8e3f86bd4>
|
CC-MAIN-2019-18
|
https://www.lafeenoire.com/new-arrivals-sporty-bump-pregnancy-fitness-clothing-limited-stock/
|
2019-04-26T03:39:34Z
|
s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-18/segments/1555578759182.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20190426033614-20190426055614-00194.warc.gz
|
en
| 0.955838
| 226
|
Sporty Bump Pregnancy Fitness Clothing- Limited Stock
Just arrived on the website.limited stocks of Sporty Bump Maternity Fitness Clothing
A capsule range of Pregnancy Fitness Tops and Bottoms
See also a few end of lines Blooming Marvellous Pregnancy Sportswear pieces
Exercise during pregnancy is good for you and your baby. The NHS has to say : The more active and fit you are during pregnancy, the easier it will be for you to adapt to your changing shape and weight gain. It will also help you to cope with your labour and get back into shape after the birth.
Exercise with caution of course and be certain to take time to read the NHS guidelines on pregnancy.
Be aware that there are also a few things you should avoid.
It
|
is more than essential that you wear the right gear when doing your pregnancy workout.
|
Sporty Bump came up with this range to ensure breathable comfort and the right level of support and stretch for you and your growing baby bump
Check out the lines we have today and get your fitness on!! NEW ARRIVALS
| 728
|
inside_word
|
is
|
remove_one_sentence
|
<url>
https://www.lafeenoire.com/new-arrivals-sporty-bump-pregnancy-fitness-clothing-limited-stock/
</url>
<text>
Sporty Bump Pregnancy Fitness Clothing- Limited Stock
Just arrived on the website.limited stocks of Sporty Bump Maternity Fitness Clothing
A capsule range of Pregnancy Fitness Tops and Bottoms
See also a few end of lines Blooming Marvellous Pregnancy Sportswear pieces
Exercise during pregnancy is good for you and your baby. The NHS has to say : The more active and fit you are during pregnancy, the easier it will be for you to adapt to your changing shape and weight gain. It will also help you to cope with your labour and get back into shape after the birth.
Exercise with caution of course and be certain to take time to read the NHS guidelines on pregnancy.
Be aware that there are also a few things you should avoid.
It <cursor_is_here> Sporty Bump came up with this range to ensure breathable comfort and the right level of support and stretch for you and your growing baby bump
Check out the lines we have today and get your fitness on!! NEW ARRIVALS
</text>
|
[
{
"content": "<url>\nhttps://www.lafeenoire.com/new-arrivals-sporty-bump-pregnancy-fitness-clothing-limited-stock/\n</url>\n<text>\nSporty Bump Pregnancy Fitness Clothing- Limited Stock\nJust arrived on the website.limited stocks of Sporty Bump Maternity Fitness Clothing\nA capsule range of Pregnancy Fitness Tops and Bottoms\nSee also a few end of lines Blooming Marvellous Pregnancy Sportswear pieces\nExercise during pregnancy is good for you and your baby. The NHS has to say : The more active and fit you are during pregnancy, the easier it will be for you to adapt to your changing shape and weight gain. It will also help you to cope with your labour and get back into shape after the birth.\nExercise with caution of course and be certain to take time to read the NHS guidelines on pregnancy.\nBe aware that there are also a few things you should avoid.\nIt <cursor_is_here> Sporty Bump came up with this range to ensure breathable comfort and the right level of support and stretch for you and your growing baby bump\nCheck out the lines we have today and get your fitness on!! NEW ARRIVALS\n</text>\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "is more than essential that you wear the right gear when doing your pregnancy workout.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
"Dog tracks seem to vary a lot more, maybe because there are many different types of dogs. Pretty mu(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:3d0abd7e-adf9-4752-af8a-8cdd3e34f72a>
|
CC-MAIN-2021-17
|
http://cristalflex.com.br/bqi5ej4/5sl2hus.php?id=coyote-compared-to-dog-2dcdd2
|
2021-04-16T14:35:40Z
| "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-17/segments/1618038066981.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20210416130611-20(...TRUNCATED)
|
en
| 0.958386
| 3,380
| "Dog tracks seem to vary a lot more, maybe because there are many different types of dogs. Pretty mu(...TRUNCATED)
| " Dog Years and Human Years | Difference Between | Dog Years vs Human Years, Difference Between Wolf(...TRUNCATED)
| " Like dogs, most coyotes have a natural fear of people, and are generally not aggressive to people,(...TRUNCATED)
| 7,714
|
end_of_word
|
Between
|
remove_one_sentence
| "<url>\nhttp://cristalflex.com.br/bqi5ej4/5sl2hus.php?id=coyote-compared-to-dog-2dcdd2\n</url>\n<tex(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"<url>\nhttp://cristalflex.com.br/bqi5ej4/5sl2hus.php?id=coyote-compared-to-dog-2dcdd2\n(...TRUNCATED)
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
"27 finalists, competing across 8 categories\nCelebrating those who’ve made a real measurable ‘i(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:bb60b09f-84aa-4ed7-a2f7-43501cf003b8>
|
CC-MAIN-2023-50
|
https://growthinvestorawards.com/2023-finalists-announced-2/
|
2023-12-09T14:44:10Z
| "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100912.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20231209134916-2(...TRUNCATED)
|
en
| 0.897403
| 541
| "27 finalists, competing across 8 categories\nCelebrating those who’ve made a real measurable ‘i(...TRUNCATED)
|
his year has exceeded all expectations.
| 2,092
|
inside_word
|
this
|
remove_all
| "<url>\nhttps://growthinvestorawards.com/2023-finalists-announced-2/\n</url>\n<text>\n27 finalists, (...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"<url>\nhttps://growthinvestorawards.com/2023-finalists-announced-2/\n</url>\n<text>\n27(...TRUNCATED)
| null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
|
"e-ISSN: 2319-2402,p- ISSN: 2319-2399.Volume 10, Issue 5 Ver. II (May. 2016), PP 01-10\n\nwww.iosrjo(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:6ee77edf-4c9e-47b1-bcd3-c062e76895f7>
|
CC-MAIN-2024-51
|
https://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jestft/papers/vol10-issue5/Version-2/A105020110.pdf
|
2024-12-09T11:14:56+00:00
| "s3://commoncrawl/cc-index/table/cc-main/warc/crawl=CC-MAIN-2024-51/subset=warc/part-00192-b392068a-(...TRUNCATED)
|
eng_Latn
| null | 5,838
| "e-ISSN: 2319-2402,p- ISSN: 2319-2399.Volume 10, Issue 5 Ver. II (May. 2016), PP 01-10\n\nwww.iosrjo(...TRUNCATED)
|
d were too small to be mapped out or were not identified on the Image.
| " So it is difficult to say exactly how much of such changes occurred within the study area. In othe(...TRUNCATED)
| 18,675
|
inside_word
|
Road
|
remove_one_sentence
| "<url>\nhttps://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jestft/papers/vol10-issue5/Version-2/A105020110.pdf\n</url>\n<(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"<url>\nhttps://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jestft/papers/vol10-issue5/Version-2/A105020110.pd(...TRUNCATED)
| 271,959,850
|
eng_Latn
| 0.957079
|
eng_Latn
| 0.992863
| ["eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn",(...TRUNCATED)
| false
|
rolmOCR
|
[
5045,
8636,
9065,
13235,
14059,
15363,
16690,
17291,
21616,
25669
] |
"26/08/2014\n\nBy email: [email protected]\n\nMr David Murray AO Chair Financial Syste(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:9186e79d-c831-4f33-9e29-2d7c5ddc98ea>
|
CC-MAIN-2018-26
|
http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/09/AustralianSuper.pdf
|
2018-06-22T05:07:36Z
| "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-26/segments/1529267864354.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20180622045658-2(...TRUNCATED)
|
eng_Latn
| null | 4,513
| "26/08/2014\n\nBy email: [email protected]\n\nMr David Murray AO Chair Financial Syste(...TRUNCATED)
|
do not switch investment options.
| " Whilst the superannuation marketplace might demand a number of no-cost superannuation switches, a(...TRUNCATED)
| 23,547
|
inside_word
|
do
|
remove_one_sentence
| "<url>\nhttp://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/09/AustralianSuper.pdf\n</url>\n<text>\n26/08/2014\n\nBy email:(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"<url>\nhttp://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/09/AustralianSuper.pdf\n</url>\n<text>\n26/08/2014\(...TRUNCATED)
| 127,675,731
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997062
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997627
| ["eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn",(...TRUNCATED)
| false
|
rolmOCR
|
[
1774,
3943,
6554,
8908,
11578,
14191,
16378,
19209,
21811,
24373,
24584
] |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 21