My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Appeal Final Order
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
LUBA Appeal Final Order
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2018 4:01:55 PM
Creation date
1/31/2018 2:04:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Final Order
Document_Date
1/10/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
I ORS 197.296(5)(a)(B)-(D), that calls into question the city's inclusion of land <br />2 on the BLI that is subject to some development constraints or regulations that <br />3 limit the density of development. Petitioner does not dispute the city's capacity <br />4 estimates or argue that the city improperly overestimated the development <br />5 capacity of any of the lands that are included on the BLI.$ For that reason, we <br />6 reject petitioner's argument. <br />7 Finally, in an argument under the first assignment of error, petitioner <br />8 argues that the EC regulations under the needed housing track that are <br />9 identified at Petition for Review 14-24 "violate[] ORS 197.307(6) because <br />10 [they] document[] land that may be developable under discretionary standards <br />11 but for which the owner does not have the `option of proceeding' to develop <br />12 under clear and objective standards. ORS 197.307(6)(a)." Petition for Review <br />13 14. However, ORS 197.307(6) is the statute quoted above that allows a city to <br />s The city maintains that it properly estimated the development capacity of <br />lands that petitioner focuses on in subsections under the first assignment of <br />error, to be developed at a lower density than would be available under the <br />discretionary track. For example, the RLSS includes "Table 6," which sets out <br />capacity assumptions for land above 900 feet in elevation (mostly in the South <br />Hills), with capacity assumed to be one dwelling per lot for lots less than one <br />acre; 2.5 dwellings per lot for lots of one to five acres; and 2.5 dwellings per lot <br />for lots of five or more acres. Record 262. <br />For land greater than 20% slope, the record includes a study of residential <br />development in the city between 2001 and 2008 that demonstrates that during <br />the study period, 92 housing units were established on 23 acres of land with <br />slopes between 25% and 30%. Record 392. The city estimates the development <br />capacity of land with slopes between 5% and 25% in the same way as land <br />above 900 feet in elevation. Record 262. <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.