Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Fred Wilson, Hearings Official July 8, 2016 Page 12 applications for building permits for the structures within the PUD are submitted, and that the applicable height linutation will be that in effect when such building pern-ut applications are filed. According to [City of Portland and the property owner], ORS 227.178(3) only gives an applicant a right to have an application reviewed under the standards applicable to that application when it was submtted. It does not give an applicant the right to have all subsequent applications for separate- approvals (e.g., design review or building permits) reviewed under the standards in effect when the initial application was submitted." Gilson, 22 Or LUBA at 318. In rejecting the Cite of Portland's arguments and remanding the city's order approving the PUD, LUBA held that compliance with underlying zoning requirements is an approval standard for a PUD preliminary development plan and under the Goal Post Rule, even if the standards are later changed in the favor of the property owner, the underlying requirements of the zoning at the time of apph~tion are part and parcel of the initial development plan.5 The City Attorney Memo argues that Gilson stands for the general proposition that: "[U]nless the site plan specifically addresses development standards that were in effect [at the time of application], then development standards that are not part of the applicable CUP approval criteria are not locked in by the goal post rule." Pgs. 2-3. Gilson does not limit the Goal Post Rule to freezing only those criteria specifically addressed in the site plan as the City Attorney 1\Iemo suggests. Rather this case stands for the proposition that all of the underlying requirements that pertained to the zoning it the tillle of application apply to the subsequent development. It does not matter if those requirements are later changed to be more or less favorable to the property owner; if there are requirements tied to the zoning at the time of the application, those zoning requirements become part of the approval. Zoning requirements (including those the City Attorney Memo regards as "construction and development standards") are part of the "standards and criteria" that are covered under and frozen by the Goal Post Rule. It should be noted that the 2002 EC did not require an applicant for a CIR CUP to obtain any other discretionary land use approvals such as a site plan. 111. DLCD v. Jefferson County, 220 Or App 518 (2008) ("Burk') 5 See also, Fiends o/'Yamhill County et al.. 1,. O~e,gon Dept. ol:4~rzcultlrre et al, 2012 WT 4575980 (holding that post application statutory changes enlarging safe harbor for wineries as permitted use were inapplicable under Oregon's Goal Post Rule.)