My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit HE #3
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit HE #3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2015 4:03:47 PM
Creation date
8/28/2015 2:29:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Hearings Official Public Hearing
Document_Date
8/26/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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).
View images
View plain text
PDF Page 9 <br />LaurelRidge Appeal Statement <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />south- property line. None of those Metro Plan printings came: with any City Council language <br />saying the Metro Plan showed a precise footrprint for plan designations at this location. None <br />has been referenced by the city; none exists. The only definitive statement made by the City <br />Council about plan Diagram details at.this location came when it adopted the Laurel Hill <br />refinement Plan Diagram in 1982 with language saying: <br />"The land Use Diagram included in the Laurel Hill Plan Update is hereby adopted <br />as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan <br />diagram." Res. No. 3700 (July 26, 1982) section 2. <br />The refinement plan shows the entire property, everything north of the UGB, as LDR. At this <br />location the POS starts south of the UGB. No city council action since 1982 has detracted from <br />this ultimate policy choice by the City Council. <br />When the HO said some part of this site is POS because the Metro Plan Diagram shows some <br />POS on the property he goofed; he should have followed the City Council and Court of Appeals <br />advice, recognized the Metro Plan Diagram as unclear at this location, and then looked to the <br />refinement plan to conclude the site is LDR, and the requested zone change. is justified. <br />II. List of Errors in the Hearing Official Decision <br />1. The Hearing Official erred in finding that part of the site is plan designated Parks and <br />Open Space (POS). The entire site is plan designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The HO <br />should have zoned the entire site R-1•. <br />The Court of Appeals explained in the Knutson case in 2005 how to determine the plan <br />designation for a property when, as here, the boundary line between two plan <br />designations on the Diagram is near the property line and there is a more specific <br />refinement plan in effect. One looks to the refinement plan to make the Metro Plan <br />Diagram more clear. That is what refinement-plans are for under the text of the plan. <br />That is what the City Council said when it adopted this refinement plan. <br />Nothing material has been changed in the Metro Plan to alter the rule above when, as at <br />this.location, the Metro Plan Diagram is not.parcel specific. Everyone agrees the Metro <br />Plan Diagram is not parcel specific for this site. <br />The HO goofed by making a final decision about the plan designation by looking only at <br />the Metro Plan Diagram. On the Diagram he saw that a smidgen of Parks and Open <br />Space green crossing the UGB line to touch on part of the south line of the property. <br />With that observation, he concluded definitively that some part of the site is planned <br />POS. Therefore, he looked at the refinement plan and saw a conflict. That was a very <br />basic error that put the HO on the wrong track. Even if the HO were correct, and part of <br />the site is POS, he should have zoned the balance to R-1. <br />71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.