Lundeen v. City of Waldport

While the feasibility of a proposed planned development must be shown at the preliminary plan stage—requiring substantial evidence that solutions to certain problems posed by the project are possible, likely, and reasonably certain to succeed—detailed technical matters involved in selecting particular solutions and requiring expert evaluation may be deferred to the final plan stage for administrative review and approval.

Petitioner appeals a city council decision approving a preliminary plan for a proposed development. Intervenor’s preliminary plan for a residential development on the subject property was initially approved by the city planning commission, a decision which petitioner subsequently appealed to the city council. The city council found that the subject property could be served by city utilities, and that the proposed development satisfied applicable Waldport Development Code (WDC) provisions. The city council therefore approved the application with conditions requiring intervenor to coordinate with city staff on design and construction of utility and drainage facilities, and to submit final plans for review and approval prior to construction. This appeal followed.

In the first and fourth assignments of error, petitioner argues the city erred in deferring the conclusion as to whether the proposed development complies with certain street, utility, and storm drainage requirements to the final plan stage. While the feasibility of a proposed development must be shown at the preliminary plan stage—requiring substantial evidence that solutions to certain problems posed by the project are possible, likely, and reasonably certain to succeed—detailed technical matters involved in selecting particular solutions and requiring expert evaluation may be deferred to the final plan stage for administrative review and approval. LUBA disagrees with petitioner that the city’s decision failed to include adequate feasibility findings with respect to the street and utility requirements, however, LUBA agrees with petitioner that the city’s decision failed to address storm drainage at all. Petitioner’s first and fourth assignments of error are therefore sustained in part and denied in part and the city’s decision is REMANDED.