Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I Or App 89, 97, 243 P3d 824 (2010). In the present case, the 2006 subdivision 2 created Tract B in its current configuration, with a short, narrow flagpole 3 accessing NW Mirador Place. That configuration presumably complied with 4 whatever maximum building setback and frontage requirements, if any, which 5 were in effect in 2006. Under that configuration, it is clear that future 6 development of Tract B, if any, would occur in the flag portion of Tract B. 7 Although the 2006 subdivision applicant did not propose specific development 8 of Tract B, Tract B was provided access, utilities and a configuration 9 predicated on locating future development, if any, in the flag portion of the 10 property. 11 Application of the post-2006 maximum building setback and frontage 12 requirements at LDC 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.01.b would radically change the 13 ballgame. As we understand it, application of LDC 3.6.30 and 4.10.60.01.b 14 would compel any proposed building to be located in the narrow pole portion 15 of the property (where a driveway and utilities must also be located), which the 16 city's own findings state would make residential development of any density on 17 the site "nearly impossible." Record 1552. A site that was configured and 18 provided access and utilities in a manner that would allow the site to be 19 developed in the future, presumably with the medium-density residential use 20 for which it is planned and zoned, would become unbuildable for any 21 residential use. In our view, the present case is one of the circumstances in 22 which the legislature intended ORS 92.040(2) to operate, at least to the extent 23 necessary to preserve the potential for future development of Tract B embodied 24 in the configuration approved in the 2006 subdivision. 25 The city's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. The city 26 contends that petitioner fails to establish the conditions precedent for Page 21