Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Metro Plan Policies are not irrelevant. Each Policy should be applicable to determine compliance with Criterion 1 and should be discussed and evaluated on the substance of its particular application. Because the Hearings Official made these seven errors, we contend that her decision that the Application satisfies Criterion 1 should be rejected. Assignments of Error, Criterion 2 Appeal Issue #2: The Hearings Official erred by incorrectly interpreting the requirements of the South Hills Study, Ridgeline Park Section - Specific Recommendations. According to Highland Condominium Association vs. City of Eugene (LUBA No. 98-082): "In the South Hills Study, the city adopted seven purpose statements. The study also contains a specific development recommendation that requires that all vacant property above an elevation of 901 feet be preserved from an intensive level of development (hereafter 901- foot Preservation Policy). The study recommends that planned unit development may be permitted as an exception to the 901 foot Preservation Policy 'when it can be demonstrated that a proposed development is. consistent with the purposes' of the South Hills Study. The South Hills Study also contains development standards to ensure that new development address known natural factors, to ensure maximum preservation of the natural character of the south hills, and to ensure adequate review of the public consequences of development in the south hills. " The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study to mean that the specific recommendations in EC 9.9630(1)(a)2 do not apply. She states (p. 16): "The subject property has not been designated for preservation. Rather, as stated above, it is designated for low-density residential development. A portion of the subject property is located above 901 feet elevation. " Discussing the restrictions on development properties above 901' within the boundary of the South Hills Study, she states that (p. 17): "The Staff Report evaluates the proposed development as it relates to the Ridgeline Park section purposes; and the Response Committee and neighbors have expressed numerous concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed residential development to ridgeline park system. However, based on the language of the South Hills Study, these restrictions relate to and are encouraged only for areas recommended for preservation or park usage. They do not expressly apply to properties designated for residential development. " The Hearings Official continues (p. 18): "the South Hills Study does not designate the subject, propertyfor preservation or park use and does not prohibit residential development. The proposed low density residential development is consistent with the property's zoning. The recommendations described in the South Hills Study purposes must be construed in the context of this residential zoning. " By this interpretation, no protection is afforded land above 901' within the boundary of the South Hills Study other than that of R-1 zoning. All subject property above 901' must be developed according to the South Hills Study refinement zone, not simply R-1 zoning. The PUD process allows considerable latitude and flexibility outside of R-1 zoning to create a development that is appropriate to the specific needs of the site as outlined in the South Hills Study section of the Eugene Code.