Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section." The applicant does not dispute that the City has adopted an approval process that meets the requirements of ORS 197.307(4); nor does the applicant challenge the city's authority to establish an approval process under ORS 197.307(6). Rather, the applicant argues that because development on the subject property would not be able to satisfy the clear and objective approval criteria of EC 9.8325 (the city's process that complies with ORS 197.307(4)), ORS 197.307 requires that the city must apply only a subset of the criteria within the alternative process of EC 9.8320 (the city's process allowed under ORS 197.307(6)) that are clear and objective. Specifically, the applicant argues that under ORS 197.307(6), "the City may only apply standards that are not clear and objective if the applicant also has the right to develop the property under clear and objective standards as provided for in ORS 197.307(4)." There is no support under the statute for the applicant's requested interpretation of it. The applicant does not appear to dispute the city's needed housing track codified in EC 9.8325 complies with the requirements of ORS 197.307(4). And, the applicant does not appear to argue that they were somehow prohibited from submitting applying for development approval under the city's needed housing `track.' Rather, the applicant appears to argue that they have a "right" to develop the property to its maximum density under "clear and objective" criteria, regardless of the track they choose. The applicant states: "This is a 13-acre site, largely located above 900 feet, with steep slopes in various places, and a total 6 existing dwellings. Under the 5du/acre density limited associated with the South Hills Study, the owner is entitled to a total maximum of 65 dwelling units on this site. Taking into consider the existing 6 dwellings on the site, the owner should be able to add 59 units to the property, whether the development is done under the General track or the Needed Housing track. The applicant proposes a total of only 37-43 units on the property." (March 3, 2017 application materials, emphasis added. )5 The applicant relies, in part, on a 2017 LCDC enforcement order against the City of Corvallis to support their authority to `ask for and receive clear and objective approval criteria.' That case stemmed, generally, from a City of Corvallis process that denied an applicant for a residential development the opportunity to apply for approval under clear and objective approval criteria 5 The hearings official notes that the "37-43 units" referenced in the city's argument were from the applicant's original site plan. In order to comply with the city's general track PUD approval criteria, the applicant has modified the proposal and reduced the number of lots proposed. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 10