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 8 <br />,gix711~r,F~,i O <br />-A,m - l s-ai Cs <br />LAW OFFICE OF BILL ELOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W: 4' AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.343.8596 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />September 27, 2013 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Eugene Planning and Development <br />Atrium Building; <br />99 West 10th Ave. <br />Eugene; OR 97401 <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON. COM <br />TEL: 541.343.8596 <br />Re: Appeal of HO LaurelRidge Decision; Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6,.SDR 12-5 <br />Statement of Appeal Issues <br />Dear Planning Commission: <br />This statement of appeal issues is part to the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Official's <br />decision, filed on this date, which also includes the appeal form and appeal fee. <br />1. Big picture summary. <br />As the HO noted, the plan/zone issue is the threshold issue in this application. If the HO got the <br />rule for reading the plari wrong, and the applicant got it right, then the entire site is correctly <br />viewed as LDR, and the applicant is entitled to•the requested zone change, and then the PUD, <br />standards review, and TIA approvals. <br />The Court of Appeals stated the correct rule for reading the Metro Plan in 2005: <br />"[T]he land use designation for properties near the boundary between use <br />designations on the diagram is unclear. As indicated by the Metro Plan, those <br />ambiguities require reference to local government refinement documents to <br />conclusively determine the applicable designation. Under those circumstances, <br />there is no inconsistency between the Metro Plan and'a refinement plan. Instead, <br />the refinement plan serves to resolve the inherent ambiguities that exist in a <br />general diagram such as the Metro Plan diagram." [Knutson, 200 Or App 301- <br />302]. <br />That rule still applies here, even after the 2004 amendments, because the 2004 amendments did <br />not make the Metro Plan Diagram parcel specific at this location, as everyone agrees. <br />Every printing of the official Metro Plan Diagram (1980, 1987,•2004 and current on the web) <br />shows a slightly different footprint.of colors at this location adjacent to the UGB. See Diagrams: <br />Each shows a different smidgen of green POS pushing across the UGB somewhere near the <br />70 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.