Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

then no development could ever occur. EC 9.8815(5) explains that “to the greatest possible degree” means: “As used in this section, the words ‘the greatest possible degree’ are drawn from Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 (F.3.b.) and are intended to require a balancing of factors so that each of the identified Willamette Greenway criteria is met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the requested use. As EC 9.8815(5) explains, “the greatest possible degree” language cannot be used to preclude the requested use. The requested use is a 94-unit multi-family apartment complex – that is a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The applicant has placed all of the development in the western portion of the property – as far away from the river as possible. Opponents have not argued, and I do not see, that the applicant could have configured the proposed development in a way that retains 94 units and the associated requirements in a way that would provide more open space closer to the river. I also do not see that the applicant is required to reduce the requested density in order to preserve more open space. EC 9.8815(1) is satisfied. Opponents argue that the proposal does not satisfy EC 9.8815(2), which requires that “\[t\]o the greatest possible degree, necessary and adequate public access will be provided along the Willamette River by appropriate legal means.” According to opponents, because the proposal does not provide public access from the property to the river and a proposed fence would prevent residents from accessing the river, the proposal does not provide adequate public access. The staff report found: “The applicant further states that there is a public bike path on the west side of the greenbelt between the river and this site that provides adequate public access to the river. The applicant also states that the extension of Lombard Drive (Street) will also allow future development to the north of the site to gain access to Marie Jacobs Park by travel southbound through the site along public roadways to the park. “Staff believes that the above criterion requires access to be provided along the river, and in this case the applicant benefits from the existence of the City’s Riverfront Path System. This existing system provides a path that is paved, and runs along the river from Springfield to the Beltline Highway, providing access along the Willamette River. The applicant has proposed a 42” fence along the 100 foot setback that will block access from the site to the Riverbank Path System. “While it is unfortunate that the applicant has not proposed a direct access to that path, the above criterion does not necessarily require that access be provided Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 6