My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant’s Appeal Response
>
OnTrack
>
MDA
>
2020
>
MDA 20-5
>
Applicant’s Appeal Response
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2020 4:01:27 PM
Creation date
10/23/2020 3:14:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MDA
File Year
20
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
Winco
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
10/21/2020
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the high-level nature of the physical development on the Property, which is why there is so little <br />detail in the 1988 Plans and the only condition remotely relating to the operations on the site <br />concerned noise control. There is not a single condition or restriction in the SR 88-11 decision, <br />conditions, plans, or development agreement that can be read to restrict the type of retail use-or <br />even commercial use-of the Property. Not once do the SR 88-11 application, written approval, <br />development agreement, or site plans refer to "shopping center" as a technical term from the <br />zoning code or restriction on the use of the Property. In fact, LSL offers no explanation for how <br />a restriction to only a "shopping center" use could even have been applied when the 1988 site <br />review concerned a single, sole-occupant building. Obviously, the approval's reference to a <br />"shopping center" was a discussion of the overall development plans, not a restrictive condition. <br />Accordingly, it is clear that the Director properly rejected LSL's two "creative" disallowed use <br />theories. <br />D. The Director Also Correctly Rejected Appellants' Contention That the <br />Existence of Old Structures on the Property Makes Every Use at the Site a <br />Nonconforming Use. <br />As a second theory for attacking the allowed use of a supermarket, both EMF and <br />LSL argue that because there are old structures on the Property that are perhaps out of <br />conformance with current development standards, all uses on the Property are nonconforming. <br />This contention is contrary to basic land use principle and requires only a short response. <br />Regulation of nonconforming uses is set forth in EC 9.1220, while <br />nonconforming structures are governed by EC 9.1230, and there is no interplay between the two <br />provisions. EC 9.1230 only addresses physical changes to a nonconforming structure; <br />Page 28 - WinCo Foods, LLC's Response to Appellants' Statements of Alleged Errors <br />MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4816-6071-2143.6 <br />TELEPHONE: 503.224.5858 <br />3400 U.S. BANCORP TOR'ER <br />I11 S.W FIFTH AVENUE <br />P ORTLAND. OREGON 97204 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.