My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearings Official Decision (Remand)
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Hearings Official Decision (Remand)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2016 4:11:12 PM
Creation date
10/21/2016 5:35:36 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 Decision
Document_Date
10/20/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Official left the record open for one week for the submission of new evidence, one additional week <br />for responses to the new evidence, and one more week for the applicants final legal argument. <br />FACTS <br />This decision is a decision on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The <br />application was originally approved by this Hearings Official and that decision was adopted by the <br />Planning Commission. LUBA remanded the decision, and these proceedings followed. The <br />applicant owns property that has been annexed into the City, but it still retains an Agricultural <br />(AG) zoning designation with a Water Resource (WR) overlap. The applicant seeks to rezone some <br />of the property Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource overlays <br />(R-ITD/A R) and part of the property Parks. Recreation & Open Space with Planned <br />Development and Water Resource overlays - (PRo/PD/W R).I The property is designated for Lnw <br />Density Residential (LDR) and Parks and Open Space (POS) on the comprehensive plan. but the <br />boundary between the two designations is in dispute. I take the relevant facts from LUBA's final <br />opinion: <br />"The subject property is a 131-acre parcel with a long east-west axis. located at the snuthem <br />edge of the cit). adjacent to the urban growth boundary. The comprehensive plan <br />designation for the subject property is controlled by the Metro Plan diagram, adopted in <br />'_004. which is a paper I Ix17 inch map at a scale ofone inch equals 7.000 feet. The Metro <br />Plan diagram is not property specific. and indicates plan designation by blobs ofcolor. <br />`'ht the present case, the southwestern boundarv of the property adjoins the right-ofway <br />for East loth Avenue. In this area, which has steep slopes, the city-owned property that <br />includes the East 30th Avenue right-of-way' is approximately ]40 to 300 feet wide. On the <br />Metro Plan diagram, East 10th Avenue in the vicinity of the subject propem is depicted as <br />a black line that runs along a southeast to northwest axis, then corvine gently to the west. <br />where it intersects with Spring Boulevard, approaching from the south. and then continues <br />west. <br />"in 21113, Environ-Metal applied to the city for zoning map amendments and development <br />approvals to develop the entire property for residential use, based on a refinement plan map <br />that appeared to show the entire property designated Low Density Residential ( LDR). The <br />cif, denied the application, concludin, that the controlling document, the 31104 Metro Plan <br />Diagram, depicts a strip of land in the southern portion of the property with the Parks and <br />Open Space (POS.) designation. In Environ-Alum/ Properties. LLC v. Cin, o% Eugene. 69 <br />Or LUBA 33, affd 263, Or App 71=4, 330 Pad 74 (2014). LUBA affirmed the citv's <br />conclusion that a southern portion ut the subject I_I-acre property is designated POS. <br />LUBA rejected Environ-Metal's argument that it was impossible to determine based on the <br />' Because there is no depute regarding the planned dc%clopntent and wafer resource )%erlaYs. for ease ut reference I <br />M11 just refer to the tern proposed zoning designations as R-I and PRO. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.