Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I housing on Tract B, notwithstanding ORS 197.307(4), because Tract B is 2 subject to the 1981 DDP and Condition 12. 3 B. Condition 12 4 As noted, Condition 12 of the 1981 DDP provides: 5 "The [Regent] building shall be set back from Elks Drive no less 6 than 30 feet, no less than 135 feet from the south property line, 7 and no less than 55 feet from the east property line. Other 8 applicable setbacks are included on the site plan." 9 The city council found that Condition 12 is an approval standard for the 10 proposed development, and that the applicant must either satisfy Condition 12 11 or demonstrate that a modification of Condition 12 is warranted under the 12 compatibility standards at LDC 2.5.40.04. Record 21. The city council further 13 interpreted Condition 12, implicitly, to effectively preclude construction of the 14 proposed apartment building within the 135-foot "setback" described in 15 Condition 12. The city council ultimately denied the application because 16 petitioner could not satisfy Condition 12, and had not demonstrated that a 17 modification to Condition 12 would satisfy the compatibility standards at LDC 18 2.5.40.04. 19 Petitioner argues that Condition 12 is not a "clear and objective" 20 standard or condition within the meaning of ORS 197.307(4). Petitioner 21 contends that, while it is clear that Condition 12 prohibits the location of The 22 Regent building within 135 feet of the south property line, petitioner argues 23 that it is far less clear that Condition 12 has the effect of prohibiting other 24 development between The Regent building and the south property line of what 25 is now Tract B, or that Condition 12 effectively converts the area between The 26 Regent building and the south property line into an open space or buffer area in 27 which no buildings may be constructed, as the city apparently interpreted Page 9