My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01 Public Record Pages 1-204
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
01 Public Record Pages 1-204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2015 4:08:06 PM
Creation date
10/23/2015 1:24:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
10/23/2015
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.
/
204
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
September 2, 2015 <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />C/o City of Eugene <br />Planning and Development Department <br />Planning Division <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) <br />Applicant's Post-Hearing Testimony <br />Dear Eugene Hearings Official, <br />Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. <br />I was wrong. In the closing minutes of the Public Hearing last Wednesday, Aug 26, 2015, in responding <br />to the Hearings Official's question, I stated that both of the applicant's source diagrams, a scaled up <br />version of an unofficial copy of the adopted 2004 Metro Plan diagram and a copy of the subject property's <br />boundary survey, were oriented due north. Following the Hearing, my colleagues informed me that I was <br />wrong. <br />Indeed, it was our intent to do that - to have both diagrams oriented precisely in the same direction, <br />holding north straight up. But we had not. The boundary survey was, but the Metro Plan diagram was not. <br />So now what? <br />We took heed of the neighborhood association's testimony that there was a 2-degree skew to the north <br />arrow on the Metro Plan diagram. We recognized the Hearings Official's concern that this might be true. <br />We recognized staffs anxiety in sorting out the implications of this information. <br />So we started over. <br />We reviewed both our methodology and the results. There were two issues before us. First, the 2004 <br />plan diagram, and second, the north arrow. <br />The 2004 Plan Diagram <br />We reviewed the specific language of the LUBA decision on the subject. As was cited in both the Staff <br />Report and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens testimony, LUBA, on Page 21 of their decision, stated the <br />following: <br />"Because the Metro Plan Diagram is now digitized, and the depicted plan boundaries are <br />sharper than in previous versions, the problem may not be as difficult to solve as <br />petitioners fear. It may be possible to scale up the digital version of the map, overlay it <br />with property lines from a digital database, and determine the precise plan designation <br />boundaries on the subject property with reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is <br />not possible, the city and petitioner will have to do the best they can with the tools at their <br />disposal." <br />We looked closely at that language. The first phrase caused some concern. The rest <br />was fine. <br />• The first phrase, "...the Metro Plan Diagram is now digitized...", warranted <br />some investigation. <br />o "...the Metro Plan Diagram is now digitized..." may be a true statement, <br />but one must be careful when retrieving a digital version of the Metro <br />+ LANOSCAPI ARCHITECTS 4 <br />375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 <br />PLANNERS + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 fax: 541.686.4577 <br />www. schirmersaire.corn <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) P12ge 94 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.