<br />Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 <br /> <br /> <br />The Eugene Historic Review Board held the public hearing on these applications on March 17, 2022 and <br />deliberated on April 8, 2022 and April 14, 2022. Following deliberations, the Eugene Historic Review <br />Board approved the applicant’s request on April 14, 2022. Following the approval, Steven Baker and the <br />Harlow Neighbors filed separate, timely appeals of the approval. <br /> <br />The Eugene Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeals of the Final Order of the Historic <br />Review Board on May 10, 2022 and deliberated on May 17, 2022. <br /> <br />The Final Order of the Eugene Planning Commission regarding this application is based on the record <br />before the board, the issues raised in the appeal statements, and arguments submitted that related to <br />the appeals, in accordance with applicable procedural requirements of the Eugene Code (EC) and OAR <br />660-023-0200(8)(a). <br /> <br />II. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />The record before the Planning Commission consists of the record that was before the Historic Review <br />Board, the appeal statements, and all testimony submitted before the close of the record on May 10, <br />2022 that was not rejected by the Commission. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Planning Commission <br />meetings on this matter were held virtually. The record for this application was provided electronically <br />to each of the board members, and printed materials were also made available for review. Under Eugene <br />Code (EC) 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are “on the record,” that is, the Planning <br />Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Historic Review Board. Additionally, <br />appeals to the Planning Commission are “limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the <br />filed statement of issues.” The Planning Commission’s decision on the appeals is based on consideration <br />of all relevant evidence and argument placed before, and not rejected by the Commission. <br /> <br />III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES <br /> <br />Rejection of Testimony <br />Both appeals included arguments that were not raised before the Historic Review Board and evidence <br />that was not provided to the Historic Review Board. Additionally, at the public hearing on May 10, 2022, <br />additional testimony was provided related to issues not raised before the Historic Review Board. <br /> <br />At the Planning Commission meeting held on May 17, 2022, the Planning Commission rejected the <br />following items as new evidence not provided to the Historic Review Board: <br /> <br />1. Text provided by Steven Baker on pages 5 and 6 of Baker’s appeal of the Adjustment Review that <br />Baker describes as text from the signed agreement between the City of Eugene and Oregon State <br />Historic Preservation Office. <br /> <br />IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> <br />The appeals before the Planning Commission were submitted by two separate parties, Steven Baker and <br />the Harlow Neighbors (a neighborhood association formally recognized by the City of Eugene). The