My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Final Argument
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Applicant's Final Argument
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2016 4:00:35 PM
Creation date
10/13/2016 1:03:29 PM
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
10/12/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Eugene Hearings Official <br />October 12, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />Decision at 34: <br />For the reasons stated in the first sub-assignment of error, remand is necessary for <br />the hearings official to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 free of the erroneous impression <br />that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. Unless there <br />is some other reason not to consider Sheet 9/2/15 04, for the reasons stated above <br />the hearings official on remand should make an evidentiary choice between <br />Exhibit L and Sheet 9/2/15-04 with respect to the matchup between the surveyed <br />centerline and the black line representing East 30th Avenue. We do not mean to <br />suggest that the hearings official cannot ultimately conclude, as an evidentiary <br />matter, that the matchup between the centerline and the black line that is depicted <br />on Exhibit L is more consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram than matchup <br />depicted on Sheet 9/2/15-04, based on findings that explain the basis for that <br />conclusion. However, the hearings officer must resolve that question in the first <br />instance. <br />The Hearings Official needs to "consider" at least the city limits line, Spring Blvd., and the green <br />finger. <br />Decision at 38: <br />In sum, we agree with LHVC that on remand the hearings official should give <br />appropriate evidentiary consideration to referents provided by the matchup <br />between the city limits line, and the depicted boundaries of Spring Boulevard and <br />the green finger, in determining whether the proposed zoning is consistent with <br />the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />3. The data that the Hearings Official has to work with now. <br />When it comes to what is where, there are just three kinds of data in the Record to work with. <br />(a) There is the Metro Plan Diagram; (b) there is survey data; and (c) there is everything else, <br />which is GIS data from one source or another, which is not on the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />(a) Metro Plan Diagram is scanned and enlarged and comes from two competing <br />sources. The Applicant started with a first generation copy of the adopted Diagram that is part of <br />the original ordinance, obtained from the City Recorder as a public record, as documented in the <br />Record. That was then scanned at Fedex Office at the highest resolution available. The <br />opponents started with a copy provided by city staff, taken from a published copy of the Metro <br />Plan. It is not a first generation copy of the original; we don't know its full pedigree. <br />We know from the text of the Plan that the Diagram is "generalized," and, more importantly, that <br />at this location it is not parcel-specific. It has qualities of a cartoon. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.