Application Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

LaurelRidge Page 7 of 11 Zone Change Application – Written Statement May 15, 2015 text and a revised Diagram. The applicant requested, as a public record, a copy of the originally filed ordinance. That public record request is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Diagram associated with the ordinance is labeled Exhibit C in the ordinance and carries a date of April 8, 2004. It is attached hereto as Exhibit C. It is this Diagram that is the touchstone for consistency. The Metro Plan Diagram is at a Metropolitan scale (about 1”=7000’). LUBA explained that at this location the Metro Plan Diagram is not parcel-specific. “The 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, on the other hand, is derived from a digital database and, while still small scale and not parcel-specific in the area of the subject property, the 2004 map depicts more streets and linear features than its predecessors, and the edges between plan designations are somewhat crisper.” Slip op 6. LUBA also explained that the Diagram is sufficiently detailed to show that some part of the subject property is designated POS. “To the extent the refinement plan map can be understood to indicate that the subject property proposed for rezoning to R-1 is entirely designated LDR, the refinement plan map conflicts with the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, which includes sufficient referents to allow the city to determine that some portion of the subject property is designated POS.” Slip op 11. The task, therefore, is to transpose the LDR/POS boundary line, as it appears on the Diagram, to the surveyed boundaries of the subject property. Staff, in consultations after the Round I litigation, has been very directive that the task must be accomplished using information on the plan Diagram. There are two referents to work with that can be located definitively on the Diagram that th can be transferred to the surveyed site plan. One is the location of 30 Avenue at the west edge of the subject property. The other is the north arrow indicator on the Diagram. The applicant has used these two referents to locate the POS/LDR boundary on the subject property. The exact methodology used is documented in detail by the supporting memorandum of the applicant’s representative, a certified planner (AICP Certificate No. 019606) and licensed landscape architect (Oregon License No. 84), which appears as Exhibit F. To summarize the methodology explained in detail in Exhibit F, the applicant followed the suggestion of staff, in the initial proceeding, and the suggestion of LUBA in the initial th appeal, and scaled up the 2004 Diagram and then registered it to the 30 Avenue and the north arrow referents on the diagram. The resulting LDR/POS boundary line is shown on the enclosed graphic printed at the original scale of the site plan and appears as Exhibit G. The applicant is requesting R-1 zoning for all parts of the subject property that appear as LDR and all parts that appear as POS on the Metro Plan Diagram. These areas, and their acreages are shown on Exhibit G. The location of the boundary line is a question of law, because the line is a part of the plan, and the meaning of the plan is a question of law. Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 200 Or App 292, 114 P3d 1150 (2005) (June 22, 2005)(“[T]he critical issues in Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540