Ordinance No. 20415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed: (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? Ifnot, why not? (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? (iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? If not, why not? (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. The applicant states that 1-5 replacement bridges are needed because the decommissioned bridge is structurally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes over the long term, nor does it meet current seismic standards. The replacement bridges and their approaches will be located entirely within ODOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way. Because the Willamette River is quite wide in the vicinity of 1-5, piers will again be needed within the setback area to support the proposed replacement bridges; however, fewer piers will be used compared to existing conditions. In addition, fill is required to support the approaches to the new bridges, including the new bridges over the Canoe Canal. Given the non-water dependent and non-water-related nature of the use, and given that fill would be required for pier support and bridge approaches regardless of where in the vicinity the bridges are located, there are no alternative sites crossing the Willamette River that would not also require a new exception. It is noted that the proposed use will be located inside an urban growth boundary on land that is neither agricultural nor forest land. By remaining within the existing ODOT right-of- way, the proj ect avoids significant impacts to park lands. Because transportation improvements, Exhibit A - Findings Page 11