Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

criteria is met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the requested use. The proposal will not adversely affect any recreational lands currently devoted to metropolitan recreation needs or used for parks or open space, as applicable to this criterion. EC 9.8815(6): When site review approval is required, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable site review criteria. The proposed Master Plan does not require site review. EC 9.8815(7): The proposal complies with all applicable standards explicitly addressed in the application. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. As addressed above, the requested Master Plan complies with the applicable standards addressed in this application. The applicant has not requested an adjustment to any applicable standards. Conclusion: Willamette Greenway Permit Request Based on the above analysis and findings, the requested Master Plan satisfies each of the applicable criteria for approval of the requested Willamette Greenway Permit. Additional Issues Raised During the public hearing process, opponents of the requested Master Plan raised several additional issues, which are not related to any approval criteria under either EC 9.3725 or EC 9.8815. However, some issues either assert or imply the applicability of additional approval criteria, which are addressed as follows: The attorney for one group of opponents argued that to the extent the parking structure identified for the southern portion of the site could or would serve uses outside the S-RP zone, that use ‘may’ not be allowed in the zone. The Master Plan explains that that parking structure will be designed in part to serve the University’s future Knight Campus for Accelerated Scientific Impact, which will be located outside of the S-RP zone. He suggested that uses in the S-RP zone are intended to be limited to serving other uses within that zone. He did not cite to any specific provision in the city’s land use code that would support that restriction; and in fact, a review of the code related to the S-RP zone does not include any such restriction. Parking is a use permitted in the zone; and there is no restriction in the code that would preclude that parking from being used for uses outside the zone. He and other opponents also argue that the parking structure identified in the Master Plan violates, or may violate, EC 9.3715(1), which includes the development standards related parking in the S-RP zone. They make several arguments as to how the future parking may not comply with those parking development standards. The applicant responds by explaining how the future parking would (or could) comply. However, compliance with the parking development standards in EC 9.3715(1) is not the subject of this review. As with the entire requested Master Hearings Official Decision (CU 18-1; WG 18-2) 19