My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearing Exhibits (9-21-16)
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Hearing Exhibits (9-21-16)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2016 3:44:39 PM
Creation date
9/23/2016 11:25:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
9/28/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
Kathleen Dixon/Weltzin Blix <br />2295 East 29th Avenue <br />Eugene, Oregon 97403 <br />(Laurel Hill Neighborhood) <br />September 20, 2016 <br />Hearings Official <br />c/o Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner <br />Eugene Planning Division <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, Oregon 97401 <br />P 1,i u E in Public I-Jearing <br />City of Eugene Planning & Development <br />SEP 212016 <br />File # Z 1 S-~ <br />Exhibit # I <br />Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 <br />EC 9.8865 (1) <br />The first HO, Ken Helms, denied the applicant's request for a zone change and the <br />proposed PUD for failure to comply with EC 9.8320(1), and the associated TIA and <br />Standards Review applications on September 17, 2013. He limited his findings to <br />determining compliance with 9.8865(1) for the zone change and EC 9.8320(1) for the <br />PUD application, stating "it is the HO practice to avoid issuing advisory decisions <br />opining on all the criteria that might be applicable to a given application where denial of <br />the application is required based on a threshold criteria such as EC 9.8865(1)." <br />Obviously, it would prejudice the rights of both applicant and opponent to not have the <br />actual boundary or acreage before determining the zone change, PUD, TIA, and <br />Standards Review. <br />The dispute in this case is the location of that boundary. LHVC was instructed to stick <br />to that point. On September 24, 2015 the second HO, Fred Wilson, writes, "Eugene <br />Code (EC) 9.8865 provides the criteria for approval of a zone change.(3) EC 9.8865(1) <br />provides in pertinent part that the "proposed change is consistent with the applicable <br />provisions of the Metro Plan." The dispute in this case is whether the applicant's <br />proposed zone change is consistent with the boundary between LDR and POS plan <br />designations on the Metro Plan diagram. There is no dispute regarding whether the <br />remaining zone change approval criteria in EC 9.8865 are satisfied. I have reviewed <br />the staff report and it thoroughly analyzes the remaining zone change approval criteria <br />and explains why they are satisfied. I therefore adopt and incorporate those findings in <br />this decision." <br />While we remain somewhat ignorant of this process, it seems like a big jump from the <br />ruling of the first HO. It seemed clear the boundaries needed to be determined before a <br />zone change could be considered, there were many serious issues regarding the zone <br />change brought up by citizens and neighbors, many on record. The first HO stated that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.