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