Planning Commission Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Hearings Official's Decision EC 9.8815(1) states: Willamette Green way Permit Approval Criteria and Standards. Willamette Green way permit approval may be granted only if the proposal conforms to all the criteria in subsections (1) through (4), and the applicable standards of subsection (5) as follows: (1) To the greatest possible degree, the intensification, change of use, or development will provide the maximum possible landscaped area, open space, or vegetation between the activity and the river. On page 6 of the decision, the Hearings Official opines that if "to the greatest possible degree" meant the theoretical maximum then no development could ever occur. The Hearings Official cites EC 9.8815(5) which explains, "greatest possible degree" language cannot be used to preclude the requested use. The Hearings Official determined that the requested use, a 94-unit multi-family apartment complex, is a permitted use in the R-2 zone and that no requirement to reduce the density in order to preserve open space exists. Furthermore, the Hearings Official determined that the Applicant has placed all of the development in the western portion of the property - away from the river. The Hearings Official could not determine how the Applicant could have configured the proposed development in an alternative layout that retains 94 units and the associated requirements in a way that would provide more open space closer to the river. Thus, the Hearings Official determined that EC 9.8815(1) is satisfied. Summary of Appellants' Argument The Appellants' argument concerns absence of evidence demonstrating that the proposal provides the maximum possible landscaped area, open space, or vegetation between the activity and the river. Appellants claim that the Hearings Official failed to provide the required specific explanation for how his findings demonstrate the required "balancing of factors;" therefore, they believe the Hearings Official's findings misconstrue applicable approval criteria. Planning Commission's Determination The Planning Commission agrees with the conclusion of the Hearings Official that EC 9.8815(2) is satisfied. An alternative proposal which retains the permitted density while balancing, to a greater extent, required open space does not seem readily apparent. The configuration of the lot, with the majority of its area on its eastern half, restricts substantial design alternatives, particularly alternatives which retain 94 total dwelling units. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #3: The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.8815(2). Hearings Official's Decision Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 5