My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials (2)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Appeal Materials (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 4:01:40 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 9:09:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
5/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 Hearing Official <br />March 5, 2018 <br />Page 9 <br />Alder Woods PUD HO Decision, PDT 07-5 (Sept. 10, 2008) at page 11, amended and affirmed <br />by Commission (Nov. 5, 2008)("The hearings official interprets this standard to require the city <br />to identify the applicable standards and criteria, and review the application against those <br />standards. It does not require the applicant to discern the applicability of the standards in the first <br />instance.") Both Alder Woods decisions are Exhibits E and F hereto. <br />A local government may only apply comprehensive plan provisions to land that it has legal <br />authority to plan for. The key dates for South Hills Planning are: <br />June 10, 1974, Eugene Resolution No. 2295: City Council adopts the SHS. <br />1981: Subject property Tax Lot 300 annexed to the City. <br />1982: Subject property Tax Lots 200 and 400 annexed to the City. <br />August 23,1982: 1982 Metro Plan acknowledged, establishing the first UGB. A full <br />copy of the acknowledged 1980 Metro Plan appears as Hearing Exhibit C. <br />May 7, 1987: City/County Agreement Transferring UGB planning jurisdiction to <br />City. A full copy of the Transfer Agreement appears as Hearing Exhibit D hereto. <br />2014: Subject property Tax Lots 100 and 201 annexed to the City. <br />The chronology of events that has left the subject property outside the effective footprint of the <br />SHS can be summarized as follows: The SHS was adopted by the City in 1974 and applied to <br />the area in the city limits. At no time between 1974 and 1987, when the city took land use <br />control of the UGB area, did the County apply the SHS to the area outside the city limits. At no <br />time after 1987 did the City apply the SHS to the UGB area. That means that the SHS does not <br />presently apply to the current UGB area that was outside the city limits in 1974. <br />The Staff Report responds to this issue at pages 5-6 of the Staff Report. <br />The simplest response for the City would be to identify a city or a county plan amendment or <br />post-acknowledgment plan amendment, extending the footprint beyond the 1974 city limits. This <br />Staff Report does not point to any such amendment. <br />Instead, the City poses several lesser theories. None holds water. <br />1. The City asserts that the SHS was effective for the 2018 UGB area when it was adopted <br />in 1974 because it described the study area of the SHS as including land outside the City, <br />and it did not expressly limit its effect to the city limits area. Not so. <br />The SHS explained that 65% of its "study area" was outside the city limits, including land south <br />of the ridgeline. However, having a study area that was bigger than the city limits area where the <br />APP B - HEARING LTTR 3.5.2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.