LUBA rules in favor of King City over Kingston Terrace development

414
Fischer Road reaches a dead end at the western King City city limits; according to the King City Transportation System Plan, it will cross the northern portion of the Bankston property, which is in a Columbia Land Trust conservation easement. File Photo/Tigard Life
- Advertisement -

The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on Feb. 14 ruled against an appeal by petitioner Mike Meyer of the King City City Council’s decision to adopt the Kingston Terrace Master Plan and incorporate it into the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

The 528-acre land mass between the city’s western boundary, the Tualatin River, and Roy Rogers and Beef Bend roads, is the same site that led to the controversial Feb. 13 recall election of the mayor and three city councilors because of the City Council’s subsequent adoption of the city’s Transportation System Plan that includes the extension of Fischer Road as a collector road through the site.

The Columbia Land Trust has an approximate 12-acre conservation easement in the southeastern portion of the planning area on property that is owned by the Bankston family. Meyer also lives in the area on land that has been in his family for multiple generations.

According to the LUBA decision, “the City council identified a portion of the conservation easement area as the future location of the collector road. Metro subsequently approved the city’s concept plan and brought the planning area into the urban growth boundary via Metro Ordinance 18-1427, (which includes) requiring the city ‘work with the Columbia Land Trust to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the portion of the Bankston property covered by the conservation easement.’”

The decision further states, “The City Council adopted findings explaining that the approved Master Plan ‘proposes an extension of SW Fischer Road to complete an east/west collector street from Highway 99 to Roy Rogers Road. The collector is anticipated to be a two-lane street that spans over the northern portion of the conservation easement where it is narrowest and where the least-valuable resources within the conservation easement exist.’”

The 30-page final opinion and order denied all of the petitioner’s arguments.

The document can be found at tinyurl.com/ye234scw.

- Advertisement -