Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)

Home Browse Search

12015 performance measure. The transition requirement applies only to the R- 23 * * * and R-4 * * * zoned land just south of the University* * *. Further, 3the building heights in the R-3 and R-4 zones would be restricted to 35 feet 4only for that portion of a building located within 160 feet from the abutting 5boundary of, or directly across an alley from, land zoned R-1, and building 6heights in the R-4 zone would be restricted to 50 feet only for that portion of a 7building located within 175 feet of land zoned R-3, and to 75 feet for a portion 8of a building greater than 175 feet and up to 225 feet from land zoned R-3. 9DLCD has not identified a basis for concluding that the proposed height 10transitions will unlawfully interfere with the region’s ability to meet its 23.3% 11performance standard and the City finds no such basis.Further, the City 12finds that the modest parking requirements are necessary to address excessive 13demand for on-street parking resulting from the increase in multi-family 14developments in the area and finds that the requirements do not conflict with 15any nodal policy, standard or criterion.” Record 30 (emphasis added). 16Petitioner first contends that the city cannot rely on its failure to take action to 17designate nodes within three years, as it promised to do in Land Use Policy #5, to relieve the 18city of any obligation to protect potential nodes from inappropriate development. We agree 19with petitioner on that point. However, in the findings emphasized above, the city also found 20that the amendments will not have the negative effect on the city’s ability to achieve desired 21residential densities and the city’s ability to meet the 23.3% nodal development performance 22standard that petitioner claims. Those findings also take the position that the modest amount 23of additional off-street parking that will be required under Ordinance 20418 does not conflict 24with the city’s nodal development policies. Petitioner neither acknowledges nor specifically 25challenges those findings. 26This subassignment of error is denied. C. OAR 660-012-0035 and 660-012-0045 27 28 Petitioner argues that Goal 12 and its implementing administrative rule (the TPR) 29potentially apply directly to the challenged land use regulation amendment, by virtue of ORS 15 30197.835(7)(b) and EC 9.8065(1). Petitioner contends that although OAR 660-012-0060(1) 15 ORS 197.835(7)(b) provides that LUBA must reverse or remand an amendment to a land use regulation if “[t]he comprehensive plan does not contain specific policies or other provisions which provide the basis for Page 29