Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

churches in R-1 (see EC Table 9.2740). However, no expansion ofthe existing church use is proposed. Rather, the proposal is to establish a separate telecommunications use which is independently subject to CUP approval. Like churches, schools and other public facilities, various non-residential (i.e. “auxiliary”) uses are allowed in areas designated for low-density residential use as contemplated in the Metro Plan (Page II-G-3), subject to local controls such as here, where a CUP is required for the proposed facility. In the case of the proposed telecommunications facility, there is one Metro Plan policy that is considered as a mandatory approval criterion based on the Planning Commission and LUBA’s holding in Northgreen v. City of Eugene (aka:AT&T Mobility Cell Tower: Oakway Golf Course, PDT 10-2 and CU 11-1). The Planning Commission Final Order on remand, which was affirmed by both LUBA and the Oregon Court of Appeals, is instructive as to how the City must apply that policy in the case of the proposed telecommunication facility. The following findings address that policy as it relates to the applicant’s request, in light of relevant precedent. Metro Plan Policy E.4 (Page III-E-3): “Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity.” LUBA found that that Policy E.4 constitutes an applicable Metro Plan policy that the City must separately address, because it “provides fairly specific and mandatory direction that public facilities such as the telecommunications tower ‘be designed and located’ to ‘preserve and enhance’ desirable features of the area.” Based on LUBA’s clear direction and past local precedent, Policy E.4 applies to this proposed telecommunications tower because it is a “communication facility” and that term is included in the Metro Plandefinition of “key urban services and facilities” (see Metro Plan Glossary, Page V-3). The proper application of general Metro Plan policies to individual development applications requires careful evaluation of whether and how a particular policy applies and what it means in the context of a particular neighborhood area. It also requires that we look to the context provided by the local regulatory framework of the Metro Plan, any applicable refinement plans, and the Eugene Code regulations intended to implement those adopted land use plans. Interpreting the Metro Plan requires weighing the various components so the plans and implementing code provisions can be applied in a practical manner to a variety of proposals. The Metro PlanIntroduction includes a section called the “Use of the Metro Plan” (Page I-5), stating that: “…A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan to provide a consistent course of action, moving the community toward attainment of its goals…The revised goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Metro Plan are not presented in any particular order of importance. The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals and policies. When making decisions based on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals and policies can be met to the same degree in every instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a HO Agenda - Page 7