My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (03)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (03)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:17:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
300
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Ken Helm, City of Eugene <br />Re: Final Rebuttal - Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC <br />Page 2 of 11 <br />October 9, 2013; (3) October 23, 2013: the deadline for the submission of the <br />applicant's final rebuttal. <br />Mr. Conte was apparently not present at the hearing on October 9, <br />2013, and, therefore, was unaware of the terms of this open-record sequence. <br />In any case, the applicant has adhered to the same, and provided only <br />testimony responsive to those items introduced prior to the October 9, 2013 <br />deadline in its October 16, 2013 submission. Accordingly, there is no basis for <br />Mr. Conte's objections, nor to reopen the record. <br />B. Rebuttal <br />As has been previously established in the applicant's written materials <br />and at the public hearing on October 2, 2013, the subject application conforms <br />to all applicable criteria in the Eugene Code should be approved. <br />The purpose of this rebuttal is to clear-up some of the confusion and <br />misstatement that have been advanced by some of the opponents to the <br />proposed co-housing project. <br />1. Applicable Criteria <br />As pointed out during the hearing, opponents rely on standards or <br />criteria that are not applicable to the application before the Hearings Official. <br />While we did our best to clarify these issues in our testimony on October 2, <br />2013, opponents have continued to refer in their testimony to provisions in <br />the Lane Code, the Lower River Road Concept Plan, Statewide Planning Goal, <br />etc. that are not applicable to the subject application. To clarify, we provide <br />the following brief analysis. <br />Lane Code. Opponents referred to provisions in the Lane Code "LC" <br />chapter 10 regarding the Willamette River Greenway. As pointed out at the <br />hearing, the Lane Code only applies to areas that are located outside of the <br />City of Eugene's city limits. In fact, Lane Code chapter 10 expressly applies <br />only to "the unincorporated portions of Lane County." LC 10.015. The <br />subject property is located entirely within the corporate limits of the City of <br />Eugene, and these provisions are inapplicable. <br />Lower River Road Concept Plan. As its name implies, the concept plan is <br />conceptual only and only provides recommendations for future plartning <br />actions. See Lower River Road Concept Plan, p. 4. (outlining framework of <br />recommendations for future action) It is not one of the adopted plans that is <br />applicable to individual land use applications. See EC 9.8010 <br />434 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.