Fred Wilson, Hearings Official <br />July 8, 2016 <br />Page 11 <br />permit application differs material from the duplex proposed in <br />the variance application, such that the variance approval no <br />longer applies. Under these circumstances, the proposal for a <br />duplex was a `substantial factor' in the city's variance approval." <br />Id at 866-867 (citing Dar ell port t'. City ol'Tiganl, 121 Or App 135, <br />141 (1993)). <br />Sinularly, the City in the present case is arguing that the CUP, if approved, «1ill not be <br />developable without showing conformance with other land use development standards <br />(adopted after the Application was submitted in 2002). The City seems to be arguing that an <br />approval of the CUP still requires the Applicant to address other land use regulations <br />(labeled by the City as "construction" or "development" standards) even though such <br />standards did not exist in 2002. <br />The Gagraier case is on point and controls the outcome in the case at hand - the City <br />is compelled to "apply a consistent set of standards to the discretionary approval of the <br />proposed development of land and the construction of that development in accordance with <br />the discretiona-ty approval." Gaaii er, 38 Or LUBA at 865 (Emphasis mine). <br />A Gilson v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 343 (1991) <br />Continuing its trend in citing cases that actually support a different conclusion than <br />that advanced by the City, the City Attorney Memo cites Gilson r'. City of Portla1nl, 22 Or <br />LUBA 343 (1991), for the proposition that "unless a site plan for the proposed CIR CUP <br />application specifically addresses development standards that were in effect in 2002, then <br />development standards that are not part of the applicable CUP approval criteria are not <br />locked in by the goal post rile." Pgs. 2-3. <br />In Gilson, the petitioner challenged a Portland City Council order approving a <br />property owner's development plan. The property owner intervened on the side of the city. <br />In 1990, the property owner submitted, and ultimately received approval in 1991, for a PUD. <br />The proposal requested multiple building height and building story variances. Prior to <br />approval, the property owner withdrew its building height variance requests. On Januaj- T 1, <br />1991, the applicable zoillng code was revised. This revision apparently increased the <br />maximum building height «rithin that zone. The petitioner brought this suit arguing that <br />since the approved height of the structures on 18 of the lots exceeded the 1990 height <br />limitations of the zone and no variances were approved, therefore, the city erred in <br />approving the PUD. <br />In Gilrolz, the City of Portland unsuccessfully advanced a substantially sinular <br />argument to that which the City is now advancing: <br />"[City of Portland] further contend[s] the height linutation of <br />the underlying zone will be an applicable standard when <br />1) cor- <br />