My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:08 PM
Creation date
2/7/2017 10:47:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
1/4/2017
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
331
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1 (5) With respect to subsection (1)(a) of this rule, a city must assume that vacant or partially <br />2 vacant land in a particular priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency identified in <br />3 OAR 660-024-0050(4) or OAR 660-024-0065(3) unless it demonstrates that the land cannot <br />4 satisfy the specified need, or that its capacity to meet the need must be reduced, based on one or <br />5 more of the conditions described in subsections (a) through (e) of this section: <br />6 (a) Existing parcelization, lot sizes or development patterns of the land make the land <br />7 unsuitable for an identified need, or require that the development capacity of the lands be <br />8 forecast at a lower level over the planning period than for unconstrained lands; <br />9 (b) The land would qualify for exclusion from the preliminary study area under the factors in <br />10 OAR 660-024-0065(4) but the city declined to exclude it pending more detailed analysis <br />11 under this (the priorities) rule. In evaluating this land, the city must determine that those <br />12 factors either require that the development capacity be forecast at a lower level over the <br />13 planning period than for unconstrained land, or that no development capacity should be <br />14 forecast with respect to the need; <br />15 (c) The land is committed to a public or semi-public use that is not reasonably likely to be <br />16 discontinued during the planning period, for example, land within the boundaries of a public <br />17 use airport or within an area governed by compatibility requirements for public use airports <br />18 described in OAR 660-013-0080; <br />19 (d) The land is over 25% slope, or with respect to needed industrial uses only, the property is <br />20 over 5% slope, as measured in the manner described in OAR 660-024-0065(7)(a). <br />21 (6) As provided in section (1)(c), if the amount of suitable land in a particular priority category <br />22 under section (2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, the city must <br />23 choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB by first applying the Boundary Location <br />24 Factors of Goal 14 and then applying applicable criteria in the acknowledged comprehensive <br />25 plan and land use regulations prior to initiation of the UGB evaluation or amendment. The city <br />26 may not apply local comprehensive plan criteria that contradict the requirements of the Boundary <br />27 Location Factors of Goal 14. The Goal 14 Boundary Location Factors are not independent <br />28 criteria; when the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine <br />29 the UGB location, the city must show that it considered and balanced all the factors. <br />30 (7) The city must apply the Goal 14 Location Factors in coordination with service providers <br />31 and state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation with respect to Factor <br />32 2 regarding impacts on the state transportation system, and the Oregon Department of Fish <br />33 and Wildlife with respect to Factor 3 regarding environmental consequences. "Coordination" <br />34 includes timely notice to agencies and service providers and consideration of any <br />35 recommended evaluation methodologies. <br />36 (8) In applying Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 2, to evaluate alternative locations under <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.