Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous APPLICANT 4/27/2004 . . LRP2004-00009 Hammer PAPA Background: Hammer PAPA Pre-app & TIA scoped in Fall 03, prior to the Peace Health PAPA, LUBA decision and subsequent appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Issue: Current proposal alid TIA do not address LUBA's 2003-072 and 2003-073 "Concurrency Ruling" (i.e. TPR 12 requires proposed land use changes to meet ODOT performance standards at all times during the planning period, rather than past practice of allowing temporary degradation be fixed by the end of planning period). Issue cannot be reasonably addressed by the applicant, City or ODOT until the Court of Appealsrenders a decision in approximately late June. Possible Paths for Mr. Hammer 1) PAPA proceeding under current rules will require at aminimum: . revising TIA to specifically address that portion ofTPR 12 including "significant impact" analysis to determine concurrency (LUBA) vs incremental (old school) regime of improvements . . Goal 9 analysis addressing OARs for economic development Risk: The resolution of the LUBA/COAcase is unknown and the proposed discretionary decision will most likely be appealed by DLCD or ODOT to LUBA until the ODOT issue is clarified. Read costly and slow loop. . " 2) Reduced PAPA proceeding under current rules will require at a minimum: . . . revising TIA to address TPR 12 and show less than "significant impact" for proposed or required ODOT improvements . Goal 9 analysis addressing" OARs for economic development Risk: Appeal by ODOT or others not certain but likely, a worst case scenario approach for improvements will be pursued during discretionary review. 3) SP for 10 acre site only . No pAPA required for warehouse cortunercial (Mott, use specific) . revising TlA to address TPR 12 for less than "significant impact" analysis for ODOT improvements. . . Risk: ODOT forced into a position to appeal based upon current vlc standards and/or . worst case scenario for required improvements creates Dolan issues. 4) Withdrawal until after resolution of current LUBA/Court case: . Clarifies ODOT concurrency/incremental improvement issue for PAPA . Clarity on immediate public improvements for City, ODOT and applicant under all scenarios . Clarifies Completeness Issues for TIA Risk: Time delay, but certainly no longer than above scenarios and no redundancies of consultant work, legal fees and other applicant costs. . . . .. 4--2-7-rJLj fAn dl (;,~ . Date Received: J.J"VV~J. Planner: . ::::rD