<br />Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 <br /> <br />appeal issues as the Planning Commission was able to identify them are identified below, followed by <br />summaries of the Historic Review Board’s decision and the conclusion of the Planning Commission on <br />each issue. <br /> <br />Appeal from Steven Baker <br />Steven Baker (Baker) submitted two separate appeals of the Historic Review Board’s decision. The first <br />appeal is focused on the Adjustment Review application, and the second is focused on the Historic <br />Demolition application. The appeals are not organized into specific appeal topics, and as the Planning <br />Commission could identify specific issues, those items are grouped and discussed below. <br /> <br />1. Allegations of an incomplete record <br /> <br />Appellant’s Argument <br />Baker asserts that a clear and unambiguous record upon which the Historic Review Board’s decision was <br />based has not been provided and that failure to provide a record substantially compromises the rights <br />of the appellant and others. Baker also states that Planning Division staff have not produced the formal <br />record that is required. <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />The Planning Commission finds that the record for the applications known as The Harry and Etta Chase <br />House (HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2) has been kept in accordance with State law and Eugene Code <br />requirements. Baker does not directly dispute any particular item within the record, or the availability <br />of a given item to members of the Historic Review Board or interested parties. The many ways that the <br />Board and interested parties have had access to the record are summarized below: <br /> <br />Historic Review Board: <br />The full record was shared with members of the Board through Dropbox and staff made offers to each <br />Board member to have a thumb drive with materials on it and/or printed copies delivered to them based <br />on their preference. Additionally, the printed record has been kept by City staff, and has been available <br />for inspection throughout the process. <br /> <br />Interested Parties: <br />Multiple notices have been sent which included a link to the City’s website where materials for this <br />application have been made available to interested parties. Additionally, notices have included the <br />name, phone number, and email address of City staff who are available by appointment to allow for <br />individuals to view the physical record which includes all materials that are part of the application. The <br />Planning Commission finds that on multiple occasions staff offered Dropbox links, sent PDF’s of <br />materials, and responded promptly to many requests from Baker to view materials. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission finds that the record has been made available to decision makers and the <br />public in several formats, and staff have been available to assist interested parties and Board and <br />Commission members in viewing materials. The Planning Commission finds that the record has been <br />handled in accordance with the requirements of the Eugene Code and State Law, this appeal issue <br />provides no basis for reversal or modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision. <br />