Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria and in several cases are policies intended to instruct the city’s regulatory actions and programs. The following three Metro Plan policies can be construed to constitute mandatory approval criteria for the requested Master Plan: Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element D.5. New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those water features. As described in the application narrative, the requested Master Plan concentrates the development south of the railroad tracks and away from the river. It preserves 80% of the area between the Willamette River and the railroad tracks to open space. Specifically, the Master Plan designates 23 acres to conservation and an additional seven acres for expanded riparian restoration. The Plan specifically includes a 200-foot setback from the river bank. Accordingly, the 20% of the area between the river and the railroad tracks on which any development could potentially occur is located more than 200 feet from the river. As described in the application narrative and depicted in the Master Plan, development between the 200-foot setback and the railroad tracks could include replacement the existing recreational fields and the addition of one additional field. Several opponents argued that the recreational fields are incompatible with “the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities” of the Willamette River and, therefore, are not permitted under this Metro Plan policy. Several opponents argued that, consistent with Metro Plan Policy D.6, this entire area must be preserved as open space, either because any development would be incompatible with “the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities” of the river or because, as a unique city attribute, the area along the river should be preserved for conservation. However, recreational fields are a form of open space and, as noted above, all uses included in the requested Master Plan, including recreational fields, are permitted uses in the S-RP zone. Recreational fields, as with all uses identified as allowed within the S-RP zone, have previously been determined to be compatible 6 with the river’s natural, scenic and environmental qualities. Others argued that the fields are not ‘necessary’ in this location, and should be located elsewhere. However, the question of whether the fields are needed in this location is policy issue, and not a question of whether the use complies with the applicable criteria. Recreational fields are allowed in the S-RP zone. The S-RP zone was adopted to implement the Riverfront Park Study (the RP Study), a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. All uses allowed within the S-RP 6 SeeUrquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, (14 Or LUBA 335; 80 Or App 176 (1986) (“Urquhart I”)) and Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 16 OR LUBA 102 (1987) (“Urquhart II”), which upheld the city’s RP Study and the S-RP zone rules that implement that study. In addition, the now-expired Riverfront Research Park CUP on the subject property called for 29.5 acres of the subject property to be dedicated to laboratories, offices and parking lots, including 13.7 acres for those uses located between the railroad tracks and the river. On appeal LUBA upheld the city’s CUP as being in compliance with the Metro Plan. See Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 OR LUBA 135 (1989). Thus, the question of whether compliance with this Metro Plan policy requires only conservation-oriented open space has already been resolved. Hearings Official Decision (CU 18-1; WG 18-2) 7