Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

April 1 0, 2008 I Volume 21 No.7 -. argued that the city's and county's findings in regard to the UGB ex- pansion were insufficient to justify it in several respects. LUBA found that the city's and county's findings failed to consider the available vacant or underdeveloped land for the desired land uses within the existing boundary. LUBA rejected the Residents' other challenges. The Residents appealed, seeking review of LUBA's approval of the city's and county's findings as to: (1) the quantity of land to be added to the UGB area; and (2) the location of the expansion. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The court agreed with the Residents' argument that LUBA erred in its approval of the city's and county's findings as to the quantity of land to be added to the UGB. The city's comprehensive plan required a citywide average lot size of 6,000 square feet. The court found that the local governments' as- sumption that all development would occur under the lowest density permitted by the zoning, with all lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, was unsupported. The court agreed with the Residents' argument that the density of residential development should be controlled by a likely R-3 high-density residential zoning, which set a maximum of 6,000 square foot lot allowance. The court agreed with the Residents' ra- tionale that if existing lots in the city were larger than 6,000 square feet, new lots should actually be smaller than 6,000 square feet in order to comply with the plan requirement of a citywide averagelot size of 6,000 square feet. A statewide planning goal, Goal 14, required that the amount of land added to an UGB had to be justified by a calculated or "dem- onstrated" need to add land for housing or other urban uses. The . court found that the city and county fa,iled to make the calculations as to what residential density would be required in the UGB expan- sion area in order to meet the city's comprehensive plan's standard of a 6,000 square foot average lot size citywide. Accordingly, the court reversed LUBA's approval of the city's and county's findings as to the quantity of land to be added to the UGB area. The court next rejected the Residents' argument that the city and county erred in choosing the location of the expansion because they added agricultural land to the boundary when nonagricultural land was available. The Residents asserted that the city's and county's ac- tion was contrary to state law, Oregon statute ~ 197.298(1), that ex- pressed a preference for first adding nonagricultural land to an UGB. The court found that ~ 197.298(3) relaxed the prioritization require- ments in certain circumstances. Specifically, the statute provided that land of lower priority (e.g., agricultural land) could be included in an UGB if future urban services could not reasonably be provided 5 23