Attachment D <br />FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />ON APPEAL OF ENVIRON-METAL PROPERITES, LLC ZONE CHANGE (Z 15-5) <br />INTRODUCTION <br />This Final Order concerns the appeal by the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens of the September 24, <br />2015, decision of the Eugene Hearing Official approving zone changes for about 120 acres of <br />land. The decision was a zone change from AG/WR - Agricultural with Water Resource overlay <br />to PRO/PD/WR -Parks, Recreation & Open Space with Planned Development and Water <br />Resource overlays and R-1/PD/WR - Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and <br />Water Resource overlays. <br />The central issue in this application was locating the boundary between the LDR and POS plan <br />designations on the Metro Plan Diagram. The Hearing Official summarized the general issue as <br />follows, at page 3 of his decision. <br />In the present case, the applicant has attempted to ascertain the boundary <br />between the LDR and POS plan designations. The applicant has provided its <br />position on where the boundary is and has requested R-1 zoning to the north of <br />the boundary and PRO zoning to the south of the boundary. Opponents, <br />including the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), dispute the applicant's location of <br />the boundary and provided evidence of where they believe the boundary should <br />be located. Unsurprisingly, the applicant's boundary would allow for more R-1 <br />zoning while the opponents' boundary would require more PRO zoning. The <br />dispute in this case is the location of that boundary. <br />II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES <br />The applicant has objected to several parts of the appeal statement filed by Weltzen Blix on <br />behalf of the LHVC. The objections contends that the appeal contains some new evidence that <br />should be stricken. The objections also allege that the appeal includes an issue that was not <br />raised in the proceeding before the Hearing Official. We resolve those issues here. <br />III. ISSUES ON APPEAL <br />The findings below address all issues raised in the LHVC appeal, notwithstanding the procedural <br />objection raised in Part II above. <br />LHVC Appeal Issue 1: <br />LHVC alleges that the HO erred in failing to take into consideration the city limits line when <br />determining where the LDR/POS plan boundary line is located on the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />PC Agenda - Page 31 <br />