Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999

Home

z.g, November I0, 1999 -- Page 5 Code -- City council believes hotel is university service or facility OREGON (10/13/99) -- Oregon State University wanted to develop, on cam- pus, a privately owned and operated 156-room hotel/conference facility with a restaurant and lounge. Schwerdt opposed the project, claiming that the proposed hotel was a "com- mercial'' use of a kind that was not permitted in the district. Uses under the land development code were organized according to "use types," such as residential, civic, commercial, etc. Each zoning district, includ- ing the OSU district, listed certain categories of use types. Within each cate- gory were listed the use types allowed in that district. A given use type could list specified uses, or examples of uses, that were included within that use type. The OSU district "civic" category listed a number of use types, including "University Services and Facilities." The OSU district "commercial" category listed three commercial use types, none of which included hotels, conference facilities, or restaurants. The land deve!opment code listed such uses as falling under "Transient Habitation" or "Eating and Drinking Establishment," which normally belonged to the commercial category. The city council considered whether the proposed use had to be classified under the Transient Habitation or Eating and Drinking Establishment use types, or whether it could be classified within the University Services and Facilities use type. University Services and Facilities was defined under the land devel- opment code as "services and facilities customarily associated with a major university. Typical uses include housing facilities, classrooms, research facili- ties, recreational amenities and parking facilities." The city council approved the project and concluded that the proposed ho- tel qualified under the applicable land development code provisions as a kind of civic use that was permitted in the OSU district. The city' council read the land development code as allowing use types not listed in the OSU district, as long as those uses also fell within the definition of University Services and Facilities. While Transient Habitation and Eating and Drinking Establishments were commercial use types, the city council found that they were also facilities and services customarily associated with major universities. Schwerdt appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA agreed with the city's argument, f'mding that nothing in the land development code prohib- ited uses from belonging to more than one use type and that the city council's interpretation was not clearly wrong. The land development code prohibited establishing or changing uses allowed in a district, but did not prohibit a deter- mination that a proposed use fell within more than one use type or category of use types. However, LUBA did send part of the decision back to the city council because it concluded the city council improperly allowed the applicants from the proposed hotel to submit new evidence after the close of the hearing. LUBA noted that the city council could reject that evidence or offer an opportunity for