HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment (2)Laurel Kill valley Citizens
Co-Chairs August 14, 2015
Gunnar Schlieder
Jan Wostmann Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
Planning
Secretary City of Eugene
Stephanie Midkiff 99 West 10th Ave.
Eugene OR 97401
Treasurer
Betty Hemmingsen Re: Z-15-005 - Laurel Hill Valley Citizen's Association Response
Executive Dear Mr. Berg-Johansen:
Committee
Adam Jones This document comprises the input of the response committee of Laurel Hill
Bill Blix Valley Citizens to the zone change application submitted by the Schirmer-
Betty Hemmingsen Satre Group on behalf of Environ-Metal, the developers of the previously
Betty Hosokawa proposed Laurel Ridge PUD.
Deborah Kelly
Kathleen Frazer History
Kaye Downey
Mitch Hider
Natalie Whitson This zone change application seeks to address the shortcomings of the
Paul Orum applicant's previous proposal in which it was proposed that the PUD property
Seamus Corbett was not required to include Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning. The
Sheryl Kelly applicant's position was based on the fact that the Laurel Hill Valley
Susan Ratzlaff Neighborhood Refinement Plan does not show PRO zoning on the parcel, and
the applicant maintained that the earlier Refinement Plan superceded the later
Metro Plan because the latter is not parcel-specific and lacks accuracy.
Laurel Hill Valley Citizens and the City disagreed with this position,
demonstrating that the Metro Plan clearly shows POS designation in the
southern and eastern portions of the 121.68-acre Laurel Ridge PUD property.
The applicant lost at every level to the Court of Appeals. The LUBA decision
(p.21) included the following language, which was subsequently upheld by the
Court of Appeals:
"Because the Metro Plan Diagram is now digitized, and the depicted plan
boundaries are sharper than in previous versions, the problem may not be as difficult
to solve as petitioners fear. It may be possible to scale up the digital versions of the
map, overlay it with property lines from a digital database, and determine the precise
plan designation boundaries on the subject property with reasonable accuracy. If for
some reason this is not possible, the city and petitioner will have to do the best they
can with the tools at their disposal".
LaurelHil1ValleyCitizens@gmail.com • 2480 Laurel Hill Drive • Eugene, OR 97403 0 www.lbvc.org
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 2
It is somewhat ironic that Sheet SA-7.0 (p.150 of Application Materials (PDT) 7-1-13 (01) - on the
City's website) of the former application shows exactly this overlay, resulting in an area of POS
designation of approximately 40 acres (see reproduction on next page).
Current Application
Rather than re-submit contemporaneous applications for zone change and Tentative PUD, the
latter of which requires knowledge of the extent of the POS on the parcel, applicant has now
decided to first apply for the zone change to resolve the POS issue.
Ostensibly because the adopted version of the Metro Plan Diagram specifically states:
VALID AT 11x17 SCALE ONLY
rather than using the enlargement of the Metro Plan Diagram with the overlaid tax lot map which
LCOG had previously supplied, the applicant chose to "do the best they can with the tools at their
disposal" as LUBA had described the alternative process.
However, as close examination of the applicant's new method shows, their refusal to use the
process prescribed by LUBA, which they had employed during the previous application process to
produce sheet SA-7.0, is simply because they do not like the results. Using the method preferred
by LUBA indicates that approximately 40 acres are designated POS on the Laurel Ridge parcels.
The applicant's involved method, described in the following paragraphs, results in approximately
20 acres.
This essentially 50% reduction in area of POS is possible only because the applicant employs
sleight of hand_
The Applicant's Method
The Applicant's methodology for overlaying the Metro Plan Diagram onto the subject property is
described in their Exhibit F on pages 81 and 82 of their application as shown in the City's online
record (Z-15-005 Application Materials 5-29-2015).
Of importance to the applicant's manipulation of the process is that they imply that their options of
items to use to register the Metro Plan Diagram to the parcels on the tax lot maps are limited to 3:
The 30th-Avenue R-o-W centerline, the UGB, and the north arrow. They further limit these three
items by indicating that the UGB was changed to a metes and bounds line after the Metro Plan
was adopted by the City in 2004, at which time changes from the Metro Plan Diagram likely
occurred. Therefore, the applicant professes to have only two referents with which to achieve
registration of the overlay: 30th Avenue and the north arrow.
MAP 18-0J 10-00 LOT ]01
Leyeriu iy OleS
11 war 1-T-11Iuoa11-1 orv es.-1imeMav. -11NIINIL 111TI-LITIN A111 IN
m,wxmw oervmn eaoem.m"=
L mauervwrevr IN
® 141114rvmIEN11411
- o
L.T~~MeEn
1- 1-T.1 11 [1111 _IT SITE ANALYSIS: LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
D11 11E 4
as SA7A
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 3
Schirmer-Satre describe the process of the overlay as follows:
"Located the Subject Property on the Diagram.
❑ Obtained a drawing of the legal centerline of the 30th Avenue Right-of-Way from the project's surveyor.
Obtained updated edition of previously generated and field verified boundary survey of the subject property
with the 30th Avenue centerline added to the survey drawing.
❑ Generated a Zone Change "base sheet" utilizing the updated survey at a scale of 1" = 200'. The base sheet
contains the subject property boundary survey, the 30th Avenue right-of-way centerline and the eligible
"referents" of 30th Avenue and the north arrow. Printed this as Sheet No. ZC-2 - Zone Change - Subject
Property.
❑ As suggested by LUBA, enlarged the Metro Plan Diagram to the same scale as the property boundary
survey (1" = 200') and printed the Diagram (that portion in the vicinity of the subject property) on the base
sheet containing the subject property's boundary survey, 30th Avenue and the north arrow.
❑ Fit the location of the Metro Plan Diagram on the subject property by utilizing the Metro Plan Diagram
referents. Kept north oriented north, while aligning the Metro Plan Diagram's single black line
representation of 30th Avenue with the surveyor-located 30th Avenue centerline. Printed the Metro Plan
Diagram alone as Sheet No. ZC-3 - Zone Change - Adopted Metro Plan Diagram. Printed the Metro Plan
Diagram on top of the Subject Property as Sheet No. ZC-4."
Using this method, Schirmer-Satre obtain a total area of 20.47 acres of POS designation. This is
approximately half the area which has been reported to us by others, including the City of
Eugene's Parks and Open Space staff who indicated in a meeting held in 2014 for precisely this
purpose that their analysis showed that the Metro Plan Diagram indicated approximately 40 acres
of POS zoning designation on the Laurel Ridge PUD tax lots.
The Devil is in the Details - Even with North Arrows
Given the significant difference of approximately 20 acres of POS designation on Laurel Ridge
between the map version and methodology developed by Schirmer-Satre and the version
developed by LCOG and the City, the question looms as to the causes of this discrepancy. Both
maps cannot be "right". Given the fact that Schirmer-Satre felt the need to limit their method to
only two "referents", one of which (the North Arrow) is not even in the pertinent section of the map,
it appears that a likely problem is located in that methodology of registering the tax lot to the Metro
Plan Diagram.
Schirmer-Satre emphasizes that for their methodology, they obtained a hard copy of the original
Metro Plan Diagram adopted by the City of Eugene in 2004. A copy of this diagram is included in
the application as Exhibit C. However, the fact that the boundary lines on the site maps
accompanying the application (Exhibit G) are perfectly crisp indicates that it is likely that Schirmer-
Satre used the digital version of the Metro Plan Diagram available from LCOG, which is comprised
of GIS "layers". According to LCOG's disclaimer statement on the diagram, this version would
have also been used to create the hard copy in Exhibit C.
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 4
The location of points along the zoning boundaries in the digital version is computed as vectors
from a point of origin. Given that all of LCOG's mapping data is provided by Lane County, the
mapping is (by law) depicted in the Oregon State Plane Coordinate System (1983). This is one of
numerous cartographic systems which could be used to project map features from the roughly
spherical surface of the earth onto a flat surface.
The Oregon State Plane Coordinate System's central meridian is located in Central Oregon. The
map on the next page illustrates the effect this projection has on azimuths of lines in different areas
of the state. The central meridian, dividing the state into an eastern and western half, points to
"True North" (the rotational North Pole of the Earth). However, with increasing distance eastward
and westward from the meridian, lines actually pointing to True North are subject to increasing
rotation toward the meridian at their northern end and no longer run straight up and down on the
projection. Similarly, east-west lines tend to be rotated to remain perpendicular to the N-S lines.
In the Eugene area, which is located approximately 125 miles west of the meridian, the rotation
imparted by the projection is right around 2 degrees (clockwise). As a result, lines running True
North - South are depicted rotated 2° clockwise relative to "Grid North" of the State Plane
Coordinate System, which is "straight up" on the map.
Consequently, as a result of this cartographic projection convention, the entire Metro Plan
Diagram, as adopted by the City of Eugene in 2004, appears to be rotated clockwise by 2 degrees.
On the original diagram, as presented in Exhibit C by the applicant (and following this page), the
North Arrow (pointing to True North) is rotated correspondingly.
However, on the version of the Metro Plan currently displayed at the link to LCOG from the City's
website ( http://www.Icog.org/DocumentCenterNiew/144 the north arrow is pointing straight up.
This version was in place at the time Schirmer-Satre submitted their application in May of 2015.
When this was noted in the wake of the submission of the Zone Change application, LHVC made
an inquiry with LCOG's Senior GIS Specialist Bill Clingman as to the fact that the Metro Plan
Diagram appeared to be rotated 2 degrees from True North. Mr. Clingman researched the issue,
and determined that a change had recently occurred in the ESRI GIS software which LCOG and
many other governmental agencies utilize. According to professional blogs, GIS specialists had
noted and complained about the change. They had also determined that alignment of the map's
north arrow with True North now requires significant work-arounds such as using an image file to
replace the previously self-calculating north arrow.
Why and how does this matter for the issue of determining the area of POR zoning on the Laurel
Ridge PUD property? It matters only because Schirmer-Satre chose the north arrow on the
diagram as one of two "referents". This seemingly minor rotation results in a significant decrease
of the area of POS zoning designation on the property.
Oregon Lambeit
GRS 1960
Sptprold
Intl Fect
Ncrth
A m eriml
Datum
of 1933
North
hm erg
VMi~I
Datum
01 1938
Fare
origin
C
r,
4
S1
r
- 400.000 -m
iC
V
3
ra
Y
MC»
P
t
y
W,
O
SeptemberOS, 1995 Oregon CIS CPL Projection CommItee
LHVC Response to ZC 15-005
1 0" M:a GeOSClence, Inc. Illustration of Oregon State Plane Coordinate System
Note Rotation of Lines with Distance from Central Meridian
1 ~
vi~# BEACON DRW
_ r BEY LN_ : •z.ca~jf~ L O
EE V,
_Zti
i 1
y
,
`---~-i-3~_._
r ' ev ~
wE ND
o I t
P a • 1 III 'y
-r Y r
! ~ i,. _ rat
v . _ f
a
1 110
Z - e~ i CRE'
9 1100F __1 - -
11T
Eugene-Sprhgfield
MetropoNan Area
General Ran
Proposed Plan Diagram
(Tic interpretation and purpose of the Plan Diagram and descriptions
of the land uses and symbols shown, Eire contained in Chapter tl-G-)
e -
Urban Growth Boundary Low Density Residential Light Medium Industrial Agriculture
Metro Plan Boundary Medium Density Residential Campus Industrial Forest Land
Railroads
A High Density Residential University Research Rural Residential
V Rivers and Ponds _
Commercial Government and Education Rural Commercial
Overlays: -
Mixed Use Areas - Major Retail Centers Parks and Open Space Rural Industrial
N0. Nodal Development Area _ Heavy Industrial _ Natural Resource y Airport Reserve
Willamette Greenway i Special Heavy Industrial Sand and Gravel
FE]
04/08/04
`P
G~ QO
ERNE 7
o
Jim
40
-
N
W E
}
~y
0 7000 ft
E_.
The information on this map was derived from digital
\ databases on Lane Council of Governments' regional
geographic infomnation system. Care was taken in
_Jy
the creation of this map, but it is provided 'as is".
LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,
,t
omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data
"wr e or the underlying records. Current plan designation,
zoning, etc., for specific parcels should be confirmed
with the appropriate governmental entity - Eugene,
Springfield, or Lane County- with responsibility for
y planning and development of the parcel. There are no
warranties, express or implied, accompanying this product.
However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 5
The Laurel Ridge PUD property extends 4,491.6 feet east to west. Over that distance, a 2-degree
rotation results in a horizontal deflection of 156.85 feet. However, this becomes an issue only if
the Metro Plan Diagram is rotated to be aligned with Grid North of the State Plane Coordinate
System while the tax lot map is aligned with True North. This is indeed the case:
According to the notations on the tax lot map (and the applicant's maps), the almost 3,900-foot
long western segment of the north property line of the Laurel Ridge property runs N 88°24'56" E.
If the tax lot on the Zone Change application maps were rotated 2 degrees to match the Metro
Plan Diagram, the orientation of this line should be the equivalent of 90°24'56" clockwise from a
straight-up position, or just past the 3-o'clock mark on a watch. However, the north property
boundary of the Laurel Ridge property is shown on Schirmer-Satre maps in a direction which
implies that True North is straight up - it is shown significantly shy of the 3-o'clock position on a
watch. Similarly, along with the tax lots, the City Limits and UGB layers of the applicant's maps are
oriented to True North, and, it is assumed that the 30th Avenue R-o-W centerline is oriented to the
same datum (see also applicant's Sheet ZC-2, next page).
However, the applicant did not rotate the Layers of the Metro Plan Diagram shown on their Sheet
ZC-3 to coincide with True North. The applicant retains the 2-degree rotation imparted by the
State Plane Coordinate System projection on their site maps only for selected layers of the Metro
Plan, including the crucial Zoning Designations.
As a result, given that the applicant "pins" the Laurel Ridge property at the western end of the map
by registration with 30th Avenue, the eastern portion of the site rotates a significant distance
northward relative to the zoning map, thereby reducing the width and area of the POS zoning
designation. The total reduction in POS achieved by the applicant versus the previously presented
LCOG map is right around 8 acres
On the other hand, although the rotation issue is responsible for a significant portion of the 20-acre
discrepancy in mapping, other registration issues have to account for the rest of the difference.
Other Shenanigans
As is clear from the applicant's maps, the registration of the centerline as obtained by the surveyor
from Lane County is less than perfect. Whereas the overlay of the centerline (shown in light blue-
green on the applicant's maps) onto the black line of the Metro Plan Diagram appears to fit
relatively well in the section of the road running NW-SE, the applicant's registration falls apart at
the western edge of their map. In the westernmost portion of the map, west of the Spring
Boulevard interchange, the applicant's 30th-Avenue R-o-W centerline is located 124 feet north of
the center of the black line denoting the location of the road on the Metro Plan Diagram (see
enlargement on next page).
I ~
o
i
I ~ 1
J I
r I
I
I
I I I I
I
6
18 03 10 00 TAX LOT 00701
ENVIRON-METAL PROPERTIES LLC
98.37 ACRES
I
/
I
lop
I /
I na~.as
I
°w se~iw s .m
18 03 10 00 TAX LOT 00703
1 MICHAEL P. EVANS
GERALDINE A. BETZ
\ 0 RIVER LAND PROPERTIES LLC
\ 23.31 ACRES
Legend Notes
IN A
111111-INI eAeAA
w,N
I IL -NI eAN .....AEA
~~NEEA~N~ oN ,'1'.
Nrv AAE oA 1 ~AO 11 IRAN.
IlL.lT~
01
Enlargement of West-Central Portion
I
I
r ~
1
I ~ ~
L` ~
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
:1
I`
18 0310 00 TAX LOT 00703
MICHAEL P. EVANS
GERALDINE A. BETZ
RIVER LAND PROPERTIES LLC
23,31 ACRES
a ~ ~
_
.a+A- a 3184.96
'
9
~l~li~►
Legend
~ SU BIECE SITE
PROPERTY LINE
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
- GIN LIMITS
30TH AVENUE CEMERl1NE
LHVC Response to ZC 15-005
Discrepancy Between Applicant's 30th-Ave. R-o-W Centerline and Metro Plan Roal
Enlarged Portion is shown 400°/B Plan Size.
Notes
1. LOT 701 PROPERTY NNE BASED ONA
6,27,2011 SURVEY BYBRANCH
ENGINEERING.
2. CITV LIMITS AND URBAN GROWTH
BOU NDARV BASED OV 6.27.20115URVEV
BY BRANCH ENGINEERING.
3. 30TH AVENUE CFMEALIFE LOCATED
USING RECORDED DATA FROM 1AI~E
COU NTV 511AVEYOfl'S OFFICE BY BRANOi
ENGINEERING.
~r
r
~
unoseaeE.M:h
:e
s
I i
I -
r
_ ,r;;
oma
;'$~Lr
~O~~o,
t7 a~-
_c~
-
~
.LL
aNOa
h a~
_Qm
- L~
-
-
wv~1p~
K
_
y~t
- °"v
VNp
y
3 _ x
-
GiSe E~~
aaa
\~l~
r A~R RE F
GON
~~A~ AR~1a
J~
a
s
M
o~
~W
W~
~m
oZ
w
~
~Z
Hw
g
O
Q 0
C
W o EN
~p o
=
L
Va
0~3
W ~
J oo a
Z
a
Sao
O
N O
us11 r-z~r
i~m
e•~aom
D~t~ DH<~01^^
R
k;
e
e
~
s
k
ZC-4
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 6
As shown in the figure on the following page, this offset is caused by the fact that in the western
portion of the diagram, the applicant has moved the tax lot, city limits, UGB, and road centerline
layers 179 feet to the northwest (N 58°W) relative to the equivalent position on the maps as
supplied by LCOG. In the eastern portion, the offset direction is more northerly due to the effect of
the 2-degree rotation. The following figures show a sequence of overlays of different transparency
(0% - 50% -100%) of versions of the Tax-Lot-Layer-on-Metro-Plan-Diagram obtained from LCOG
vs. the applicant's version on their sheet ZC-4.
In light of these obvious differences, the question that must be answered which map version is
correct, or, more precisely, more correct. Even if the rotation issue is ignored, the Schirmer-Satre
version of the tax lot overlay onto the Metro Plan Diagram is clearly significantly different (by 179
feet) from that used by LCOG and the City. However, simply the fact that LCOG's version has
been used for some time now does not necessarily imply that it represents the "best" or "correct"
way of overlaying the tax lot layer onto the Metro Plan diagram.
Mr. Clingman at LCOG was again contacted in order to shed light onto this question. His email
response covering the issue is attached. In short, the relationship of the tax lot maps to the State
Plane Coordinate system is most precisely defined in the GIS system because property boundaries
are the most precisely surveyed. Similarly the City Limits layer of the GIS system can be aligned
with the tax lot layer and State Plane Coordinate System relatively well because annexations are
typically performed based on surveyed boundaries. However, where not defined by surveyed
boundaries, the UGB has a less precise alignment to the tax lot layer than the City Limits.
Similarly, the Metro Plan Zoning Designation layer, where boundaries are not defined by surveys,
but by lines drawn on paper, is less precisely aligned to the tax lot map and State Plane
Coordinate System than other layers.
The question then is how much "slop" is present in the relationship between the Metro Plan
Diagram and the tax lot layer?
Schirmer-Satre uses a very small "snippet" of the Metro Plan diagram in isolation, in order to
perform the alignment using only two referents (30th Avenue R-o-W centerline and north arrow).
LCOG uses the entire diagram.
According to the tax lot map (Lane Co Map 18030900), in the vicinity of the Laurel Ridge property,
the width of the right-of-way for 30th Avenue varies from 240 to more than 300 feet (there are even
wider R-o-Ws in the area of the Spring Boulevard interchange). This is, comparatively, a very
large right-of-way and poorly defines the actual location of the road. As a result, use of this
referent imparts a very large measure of "slop" into the alignment of the diagram with the tax lot
layer. In addition, in this area, the road surface itself is located close to the western boundary of
the R-o-W as the eastern portion of the R-o-W is taken up by road embankments. Aligning the
centerline of the R-o-W with the center of the road moves the R-o-W centerline significantly farther
west than it is located in reality.
r~
~O~l. Q
-Aa
.y~ ~ d
s~
i Ap licant~'s City Limits ~ #
D
~ LCC~G CitK~ i o
City Limits
' _ ~
Offset ~~4- .~'icant's Parcel N-Boundar- ~
' M1
~ ~
I ~ and
z
-~No~ Rotated .
~ _
~ ~ Y
~ Note La - - i/ - Lack of 2-Degree Clockwise Rotation of Applicant's Property Lines ~a o 0o TAx ~o ao~o~ t'
~ x w
r
ENVIRO TAL PR ERTIES L C f~
98.37 ACRE$
LCOG Parcel N-Boundar
Y
- - _,~ti ~A
~ ~
- - ,-s+~~""~
~ 179' Offset _ _ - _ - ~i Y
j.~`~ ~es3 ~e eo ux r.or oa~oa-
\ ;I
~ ~ ..,~.(\MICHAEL P. EVANS ~ ~
GERALDINE A. BETZ ~
~ ~ _ ~ ,RIVER LAND PROPERnE"
it 1 I - $ ~C,. / \ ?'.31 ACRES
Applicant siBoundary ~ \ LCC~r
Notes
1. LOT 701 PROPS RTY LINE BASED ON A
6.27.20 11 SURVEY BY BRANCH
I~ ! ~ I r~ ENGINEERING.
2. CITY LIK4ITS AND URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY BASED ON 6.27.2011 S U RVEY
- - DIV nQnAtru CMr.1 MCC olmr.
I Apy vv WeW--WVyq ■ rpw,V `r41nw.
3. 30TH AVENUE CE NTE RU t1E LOCATED
USING RECORDED DATA FROM LAIC
1 1 f _ ~ COUNTY SUR'VEYOR'S OFFICE BY BRANCH
- ENGINEERING.
r 'r ~ f~ ~ 1
IE
1
N ~l ~q.
_
s Legen
\r
.
~ ~ rir ter. Q_~r~
~ - `~-----I T y
~ ~ ~
1 1 ~ ~ ~
6k rraa Rd
Registrat o ed using Met o Plan esi ti~m ~cc~u ary Corn rs
•
I I Map of Metro Plan Designations
~,0~ e { rr~ ~ ~ { e•{ {xd m M cL1{ Itrnm 1s Gm1. 531 r dIt rcrp ~VN,~ u~h{r{r~p{r,3lf~nilu Slt~l WSW Tai k: Y, 1. l" [ om melt Iowa e.ri t .1 N
,r, e~ir.„i►e ~Klxtt lira kbnArl Ow>~ae. - v, Pwtu rang (:p.n tin.,-w
t ed n1 saal Watts ~Un Q►gern IMI - AgnoUAilr•
'lf hUmalvl 01 hf RfQvf1 dtfll~dlAT.O~b Foces. L
.wu«w m ~ c{rnt ctuorfrm~r~r ~ 6~, •x~w~c Monf»{ ray itlr ~~cne U0B
it n{walandhtrt~p [alli{~vonvt~151{is• ID R. RunW krs.iv-tug
~.C~C4ttxnx ro:tCr n? ~eslust~ h+x ervr3, •,++»ai. a p4frfT1 rwtq n He 0~M dif
,Y !A Ir111f1y15Q rKGf'~{ clffKt p11 a1{y'111]1{
~7 Kacic ~Ilrcelf riat1:1 ~vir►Mt N1'M ,tp~rtr7f ;amsKr~i {rtf► • Ctpnf :p»jldf U o 100 200 :30o aaoFcct LCOG
(1~~."Mr/ vnM'fiX/'~11r}~t~fUn~rglln -
•!rR'1:CnR+1 ~I'!r. ~f~tN Ilpe {r rr; ~rnnln ~,(nua rpiwi AYtf'1;Kyrpt~t(KAtI
LHVC Res onse to ZC 15-005
_ ~
Annotated Overla of A licant's Sheet ZC-4 on LCOG-Su lied Metro Plan Y pp pP OG Legen
GeoScience, I e nc. ~ ~ o
A licant s Sheet ZC-4 Shown at 50 /o Trans arenc Pp P Y
~rr11 H11 pr
~1~,Or
~ a o
sue`
4 O
o
a
o
4~~ o
8 ~•p
4
`fir
~A
~m
U
Cenpa' BI„1 E 2ya+A~r
Hand
t
i
f
qy~
37h, A
hD
4
T ~G~
u
~A
~i12M00:~
0
0 r
U
~r,~Y ~
0`
F
9F 0
'A ~ ~
y
~p
Elio R+oorraa Rd
Map of Metro Plan Designations
e { rr~ ~ ~ { r{ {kd m M dN{ Jrnm 1s Gm1. 531 r dIt rcrp ~Vn'~~ u~h{r{r~p{r,31f~n11u S+tr WSW Tai k: Y, 1. l" Gm melt Iowa e.ri t .1 N
,r, e'1p:1~: Ilf ~K,rX« l1n! h'bnAr OWiNae. - P Pwits any Cpoem `:n*.-w
~ r ed n1 salfi Watts a{n Q►gern B-tw - A. AgnoUAilr•
`lf hUmalvl Q1 hf RfQvf 1 d~~ ■Yr~ Orb.
.wlt«w m l w tnrc/ dGQ.rmvrtr n9►„►~. 6~, •~~p~c Monfri{ ~tldr C+rt off Ifl{t L02cne U0B Foces. L,), L J E
it n{ walan d h{ rt~p [al l i{ ~YOnWd "1{ is• rim R. RuW Rmbjjv-tug
~.C~C4ttxnx ro:~ n? ~eslust~ h+x enx3. •,++»ai. a p4ftiT1 ~I.wlq n He 0~M dif
•Y !A If111f1y15Q fKGf'~{ clffKt p1{ a1{y'111]'1{
~7 Kacic G~~ riat1:1 ~vrlrn/t N1'M ,tp~tnf ;amsKr~i {rtf► • Ctprw :p»jldf U 0 100 200 :30o aaoFcct LCOG
(1~~CMr`I v/~M'fiX~'{~M~ft~fa~n~rq►~n -
•!rR'1:CnR+1 ~I'1r.;f~tN Ilpe {r rr; ~rnnln M(t+l{tY tplwl AYfA;ItytQ 1~4 (ffAfl
I
LHVC Res onse to ZC 15-005
LCOG Su lied Overla of Metro Plan Desi nations on TL Ma pp Y g p
eo c~ence n e nc.
Obtained from LCOG on Jul 7 2015 Y
- - r~~
Ftira! H11 pr
1f~~ Dr - ~aP+
'9
- w ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ v,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,,1
r~ + J I
r 4~
r'
r~ j J ~ V ~Q
r -
/ xa ~f~ '
y, t
' 1` °o
~1 D
~l'+n b ~ . @ ~Ir
T ' f{
ti
s ~ r
w
Al~ 1' tx
r' •
•
4 i~
•
CNnt•~` Bled
~ 2~ A►a
w
N_wndt+:
.yrn_
' ~ ~ f t. b
i
' ~ _ ~'_y,
I
J~ I q
~ r
18 0310 00 TAX LOT x0701
1. ENVIRON-METAL PROPERTIES LLC
98.37 ACRES
.i'~.
'r , i~
a - -
quo ~
s
'+''4~1v 901$9 S$9
~ ~1,,+ ~ 'V~ 4.
r
- ~ i
k-- • -
i
i 1
' ~ 1
r Q) C~
e ~ ~~4~ i
~Q ~
i
~
j! Legendl sus~crs~r~ 1. dotes
ii
1. LOT 701 PROK RTY LINE bASE C► _ r.. A
6.27.2011 SU INAA Y BY M*K}i
ENGINEERING
.i J~ PROPf RTY l1NE
1 2. 2. CrTY LWAITS AND U RaAN GR O`VV TH
BOU WARY BASED ON 6.2 7. ? 01 1
a
11 VR9ANGROMITHBOVNOARY BY BRA ENGINEERIN(: .
.l~ ia/ ~ l z I 2 n TU nvTw W rC Al`r'C RI m r I ,-it-c. T c rr
~ ~ ~ 1 v vv■r•n VVV ',r I •`0 "Wr wV VVV0" e".'-
R i ~y1~'` U9NG RECORDED DATA FROM LAM
- ~ _ _ ~ ~ s a irr. ~N i ~ 1 i` li 1~f~ COUNTY SURVTYO P*~ OFFICE BY BP-,%P-:,:N
' ~ 11 I
~ ~ - h I ENGINEERING
11 r r A ' I
r • ' 30TH AVENUE Cf NTERUNE
I
Y""y1 1 A
i' ' 1 ~ I
.5 t-~ I
r ~
n ~
\
~
~J_J_ 1 ~-L I r ~
~ r -t ~ ~
r'
F,
4 i
i ~
~ 1~ _ ~ -
aboaf:bA Bkmrba Rd
of Metro Plan Designations
■
AA AYf'' a 'TtIT~~~AIIG'[[Y•$Ctw 111 cirf[~r7Al fa urru':~`IacStt T:rci:Y. I It-r.I:tn.t`; I{W-%rson1.4 - P Ow-its and (.Pon !:n%-w
',1 R!p 3aDa'r{ (t[tprNi t4Af pl1 [ S/•pM1Nta ~s+bd[e n 91c kejp~ LaM Margo, Li~l/trse
t.! w{ rd t►!!y►!) I~Id~IK1 fA~jAfT1 :a
/h / [~bnuos ~ h! rtlp+ral dtrl~~d tcn~ bph A. Agr*jJ►jIc
,t~ [da~w m lar. Ca[ica d Gonrr[[►[Id nq►n+ - F, Fortis' Li -,_i
~~a~vv~c [r'~rrllwa+ r~tta^r G[t wry iwK rf t, ~ wT~m d rit naive tal t i[ d[atlr! ^[c ~r u~tr►r ~J3E A, Rwal RKS,lr-rub
~.'.rJStdlf►%1~:4tt te)rfi{t[Sd~1rlxCnx~k
r' ryy(ff y, p p4MY7t M w!?~l IL) h 11 [ t~~1/ !9ri : r to 4[~M1~~ 1}t9r'r{ C~1'CM! X1111 iSltijrllSOil
_ ~6tc~c G+~th 1hW k9 5t W'I~rM: N17t[ yy~~
al~f,~f!?I jokT't~M1111 /[!tJ • C~glti! :p'h~'hf: t .h/ - (r 111~^OurY rtrr!"fiXr'rdtt~tt+~lyn~rgl+~~ r~ :Jv:: 400 Fcct L+COG
'S"~X"TR,'~ Cr?►S lif('[1 11 h: ~Y1M[rl[1 n,lrr~_c rr ry~~n1 ,v:rr,trr;rp t.t lrr.lct
I
LHVC Res onse to ZC 15-005
p
■ LC~G Su lied averla of Metro Plan Desi nations an TL Ma
eo c~ence nc pP Y ~ P nc.
~ ~ o A l~cant s Sheet ZC-4 Shown at 50 /o Trans arenc
l~ l~ p Y
s~
ti~ Hsi Qt
Capia.Or
I
I
I
I I
. I I
r •
I
I r
c~
w '
I
I
I
I
.Y
18 03 10 00 TAX LOT 00701 00701
i
ENVIRON-METAL PROPERT OP E RTIES LLC
98.37 ACRES
3164.95
w
• j• v _ 37 lei •t t'O.i'1ir 904.89
r 18 18 03 10 00 TAX LOT 00703
MICHAEL P. EVANS
GERALDINE A. BETZ
Rl'
RIVER LAND PROPERTIES LLC
I 23 23,31 ACRES
I Legend Notes
I SU& ~ SUBJECT SITE 1. LOT TOl PROPERTY LINE BASED ON A
6.27.20 11 SURVEY BY BRANCH
I ENGINEERING.
PROI PROPERTY I"
2. CfTYUMITSAND VRBANGROWTH
1 BOUNDARY BASED ON 6.27.2011 SURVEY
VR& VR:BAN GROWTH BOUNDARY BY BRANCH ENGINEERING.
3. 30TH AVENUE CEN'TERUNE LOCATED
USING RECORDED DATA FROM LAM
_ am 07Y LIMITS COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE BY BRAN04
ENGINEERING.
3on ■ 30TH AVENUECEMERUNE
i I:R
eioara4 Kd
Unofficial Map of Metro Plan Designations
Td• l :M.r; ;?ah dwnt %
~Q~ ',%a rrap -dovs c Ps • rrap 3qpr v s rra p 'w s. c• s tx•! cr. !w dad a adrsvri f7 Glns • i?i ■ der T~. rrop3gpati{ CtfrpaaNr41hA1ptor dergmWe.4da
v. Vi"sb n 11 -llc yed M Ile 419gerel U/d Mangy Wathe P ~taftl► an r : n~~
r.t is rd no a: r. r it rd H 0 w7t a1 tadxtld aln CLWAM Q :a to . a-tn A. AgrtpuINIc
Ti s Mr:rrw m 1. nIm rw m Q1 ttla rrapwav dw%vd tvr. (SWU ,w .taws an I rw Cce mj of GawarTTrdrK rvo3m% F, fotO+.T L~~ J
-AW-Ap's C VAX r~)vplc "'k0j"rit sr IEELPIC11C. tJJE tar~ Ge sir '&J" a. p~
O i_.~1~+{OfAX I t~..faaaatcAdIII srnmp W I i s Iro t*4**41rY `~1rrr fVt11~Y'IU~
rrersps of p: ~:aG•:aranx ia:ctc rrsctest~ 1/ +x e~x•. •r•was a vorirs +>>,rap Irc ~l~fal afls
-W TOM &edw%" rr to #,edautrry r*taral CA~d ptal d"Onersant
4Frcpn •!s loon f L, netlc mtvh show k be CpIM no 0 we 1, In 34 prop1.1.:aw,meP e.,t,,. C<a.,.:a.,: -,(rJ ?-L::r 4W Feet LCOG
Or We Cowry .yr,c+xOw# C1 • ~ l Ole "W" - WO r@5('rYeob rt f(f (a1y I f Q , ~~.r: •rararlri Y Inpetcd 21CrV
n.~~r~c.~ r-~;;M ~-:~n:.r;rpt.•.~~rnct a1: !J•V
LHVC Response to ZC 15-005
pplied Overlay of Metro Plan Designations on TL Map
GeoScience Inc. LCOG Supplied O
.Mk - 7- Applicant's Aicant's Sheet ZC-4 Shown at 0% Transparency
FOR ASSESSMENT AND
TAXATION ONLY
6409
6402; '
C
0
0
0
~Of~=7 - o
SEE MAP 6989
18030920
-3- - - 25"5
\
\
v
\
\
r; \
~ ' ~
A a 4
a ~
N s ,
o
N ul ~
~ /
1 ~
/ r
h~
I
~ I 1
~ I
~ S AP, i
180
0
0
~
1'.~
V
0
OOSEE
0 18031
r
~ _
_
X4999
iE~[V1AP
I~
A
,1 r,
~ ,
,
I
-I
SE AP
~
\ ,
\
~ \
18 24 , 000
0
„
0"
0
~ 0
0
SECTION 9 T.18S. R.3W. W.M.
Lane County
1" = 400'
sue, ~0 D
P„ L~ 44 „
~$03~443 - p -
- ~ - -
18030333
LOT 2 34.
~ LOT 1 34.88 ~
0 OC
00
0
0 0
~3 000000000000 00
00 0 r~00
0 0 ~v
z
_ 00 00 000
00 0 0000
Qoo ~ ~ 00 000 0
o~ ~ - - D-2 - - - - - -
\ d a°~,ti ~Sa°
\ \ 4jIS 329,
\ > !y
\ rJ
S>, X29 0
1 dyad \ tid \
F 6900
~ ~ 0
~ u, ~ ~p \ 14.6 A ~ ~
~ 05~ \ 4 F
0 N y9e ~ y \ z
1
r• ~ v
~ y, ; ;
\
S35°28'1"E \ 200
58 \
ti~ ~ 217.0A' ,6Q
~1ti ss3~z3'1s°e ° v ~ ' w 15.95 AC
445.02' 1'10 \g3.25P5 ro - ~ ~n
589°23'30"W \ 1A 61~ M m ~
_ " SEE MAP
6890 ,,~59 SPA ~
~z61 ~y9 N~ 18031000
8.08 AC VA61v s ~ yL
\t~ m
\ ~ ; 0
s~, 1io ,
~ ~
3
v
~ 0
z
_ - ~ - o. °Z3-3 -e N$9°~,W ripPRO%
81 - - - - - - - - .i
30' 300, '300', '~'.T':,r~ ~ , ACOR
800 90 I ~ ~ 3 00 ~ - ! Tr ~ f TT-.* !Y--r j l-r=*T ~`"~-i " J _
2.86 AC ~,A aryti 699 ~ ' 49~ 300 -
m
' 100
°°~o.F ~\I 3 ~ w4.86AG
a.a, 13 i~ ss' 5.36 AC
700 ~ I
1 ~~t ~ '~4 ~ I ~ I ~ 0.51 AC
5.14AC ,~t~ 9>,~~•~ I I
vv 2200 ~ I
I
fl~C)
2100
12
4.83 AC
Qz2
` .3~ ,
•
~,4gg
~
~
~
~
828 AC
~
~4
` ,
, ~
~I
m l -
fi0'
-
~
23 0
`o,
. . ,9g~ I ~
30ff
-
o
'
2201
325 AC
~
2400
_
5.--
r
I '.'gyp
300
-
I ~ ~ ~a~9r1~
300'
~
0.78 AC
2.41 AC
' ~
I ~ I
1 2>~99
27~
az
' 4 z ~
1
~3J2~
„ as ~
~
2500
~I I
.I
"I j
I I
I O
' 3300
~
~ 3200
~ ~
~
„
` ~fl9^ 3'E4' 3fr4'
1.16 AC
^ ~
11
133
5.56 AC
~
° 3
4 AC
3100
'
~^~>a' ; ~ ^
~
~ E
.
2.84A
3000
N 2.74 AC
N 3D
z N ~
G
I
,~s3ga'.
IN ~a~'17^ ~
X3"
S69°24'25"E
~a1s1.77'
,R=3890.99'
o A
N= ~ m ti~
1.
la
IW 2800 I
&
/
"
~ ~ ,
5 I
ti,31ss'I s' 4.17 AC I
S 33002
0 ~
~a'~'
Z
Jae,
s
~
2990
Neo° I
sa a'YZ ~r
°
°N~g
- ~o
' / 53
~
5000
5
34 AC
3p6.a~
2.11 nc
-
~°e'
~ ^ 2891 I
~ ~ I
bti 5
~69ti d
~ i'
4809
.
510
S 38337
~
2.58 AC I
Nse°i~a,°g,.
3499
~
~
426 AC
~
Ja9es I
zo,
0
G9s 1.5 AC
m
E
S ~
~
3.99AC
5300
~ ze68p
0
A
NsO~ ~ zs ~
'
3.37 AC
5499
A zs
0
-
z ~ 0 7000
' ~ ° ° 4900 5, 97
~
5301
''°e-~;~,
3.82 AG
~
2.96 AC
~ 5599
0 SEE MAP
w
a ~ 5302
~ ~ 8030934
4-Ft/U ~
I N '
~ 2.54 Ac
fr'1
WEST
_ _ - N88°04'4S'W 576.15 ~ 1g,80~
_ _ 32 @0'~~
30
N
i
n
363.52' ~
be 267.40' ~
6300 EE. I 989°6964'W
\
~
0, ~ ~
`.i v .
_
,-,30q
- ~ - -
,
~ i~ ~
B 5r$~~I t' '
~~3 i~
~ 000'
- -Z~p'3'°~ -
yy~1y )
0
\ w I w ~ j 4.31' 6100
~ ~ i ~3.a1 AC 6200
6000
5900
5800
5700
589°15'46"E
r~
~
N 3.04 AC
~ ~ 12.7 AC ~
2.86 A
2.87 AC w
325 AC
3.27 AC
~ ~ 5699
v
~ S 33357 ; ~ ~ ~
~ ~I ~3° w
tiA 3, zl
y
se
I
es
'
~
~ ~
<
a
~
.
d
5303
~ 3.36 AC
~
~
,
t
q
~ ~
E
m
~
Z
S 38054
i
n m IS62°30'39°E N76°E
'
100' 90'
0~
s
sA3
,
p
~ Y;
.
-_-~Y
~ \ 208.47' 11219' 70' 238
ig9,
~J'P 30'
~
-
-
~6
N
5200 I
9
18,01 CN
SEE MAP
18031620
2909
3609
,u,~
SEE MAP
18031610
U
0
00
99A
N89°10'W 79.84 CH rvn~-eu[-t
589°14'33"E
,59.84' 16 15
GAP
,4'
P~
g2
~s.
w
z
C
SEE MAP
18031500
18030900
EUGENE
Icattlwc - 2011-08-11 17:19
CANCELLED
5300
1800
1801
1900
2900
2600
2700
3400
3500
3600
3800
3900
400
4000
4100
401
4500
500
5400
5500
5600
600
6400
6401
6402
6500
6600
900
1400
REVISIONS
04108!2010 - LCAT155 -CONVERT MAP TO GIS
09!2812010 - LCAT115 - CORR DIM TL'S 4900 & 5000
0811112011 - LCAT113 - CORR TL 2400 & 30TH AVE
EUGENE
18030900
0 \
G
u
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 7
On the other hand LCOG, in using the entire Metro Plan Diagram for alignment with the tax lot
layer has numerous options for referents. One that is readily apparent is the Downtown street grid.
In that area, right-of-way widths are 66 feet (Lane Co. Map 17033141, next page), which provide
much tighter constraints on the street locations on the Metro Plan Diagram than the 300+' R-o-W
of 30t" Avenue.
In order to determine the magnitude of "slop" imparted by the use of Downtown Streets such as 7t"
8th 11th, Willamette, Oak, High, Patterson etc. as a referents, we enlarged the 11 x 17 copy of the
adopted Metro Plan Diagram supplied by the applicant as their Exhibit C until the black lines of the
streets obtained measurable width. In the downtown area, the width is constant at 0.006 inches.
Given the 1" = 7,000' scale on the diagram (which was verified), this means that the black lines on
the Metro Plan Diagram represent 0.006 x 7,000 = 42 feet.
As a result, the potential variability of the relationship between the tax lot layer and the Metro Plan
Diagram imparted by use of the Downtown Street Grid is 66 feet (width of R-o-W on TL map)
minus 42 feet (width of streets on Metro Plan Diagram) or 24 feet!
Therefore, it appears that even without use of numerous other potential referents, LCOG's
alignment of the entire Metro Plan diagram with the tax lot map and State Plane Coordinate
System should be accurate to within 24 feet both N-S and E-W.
The 179-foot offset of the applicant's version of the overlay represents more than 7 times the
amount of variability expected from the use of better and more referents not necessarily present
within the snippet of the Metro Plan Diagram utilized by Schirmer-Satre.
Therefore, given that the LCOG version of the overlay has an expected variance of 24 feet, the
Schirmer-Satre version varying by 179 feet from the LCOG version does not fall within acceptable
limits of variance and is "incorrect".
FORASSESSMENT AND N.E.1/4 S.E.1/4 SEC. 31 T.17S. R.3W. W.M.
TAXATION ONLY
Lane County
1" = 100'
SEEM,
170331
uvvl,y CHJI
SEE MAP (CITY GRID) 1 588°i3'STE -400.73'
31~ I SEE MAP (CITY GRID) ~ 666°14'19"E-399.67'
(C]TYGRID)
5 ~ 7033
i
i ~ ~
B°' 14800 14600 3 I ~ -
I 14500 14400 -1-0300 "I' 3• 3
33 ~
EE MAP
1 033143
10
.a
I;
W
m I 33'
65 1q' g
~ o ~ ~ i i 6400 , 2 5 4'
I le EE MAP I I ~ 5300 5200 3
I I I j ~ 200 100
2 ~ 14700 ~ ~ 21, - ~ I
I _ ~ ~ 1 , I> 7 33141S0 1 I__~; ,
- - - - o I I o
~ - - 1 19 I
_ N 4 ,
-
3 ~ I I~(~r 2 0l I
OA 4
I o tso' M I 10400 3 ~---4 `v~ 1 ~ - -
-I 3 o a I~ -----I-1,~ 3 - - --f'i I
❑
14300 N ' 10500 I a / ~ I,
I 15000 I I I . _ ~ m > 6~~00~ / 9 I
I~ 3 4 _ 400-
" 3 a
p I ~ a I " eo' 3 j I
"
1P ~ 95' 65' " '
I 5 53.4'
I 10600 2, 6'
- - - - I 533'
42 I 15100 ! ~-6TW------------ ---e-----~'-~"'--'-- ~
I " I 6 5400 I I I ,06' -
8267 I 60'MIL 46' 60'
I I sza' I 1 6 I
I ~ I I; I 59Q-~,
' 1
a
I s I I I~ -7-00.~-----
° X10000 I 5700 " I
N
I I I I
" -
~ 7s'
5 I I s6' 90' , I I
o
----------I--- ,5
I
I I - I
I
6x66--- '~$Q0 5500---a 5000---- ~ 7 ~ I
' j I N II i
I 7 I
~ " $
( - I I e I
o ~
m I_ ~ o I i ~ r--i j j i-- E
~ I I
tt
~ IG I I I I I
a> 7 , I I I 5900
I- ts0' I ,00' m ~ 4900 I ~ 0 600
o u I 60' 14' S I 7.8' " 4' I
H 53' I 80.16' 7 I 1
I I ~ s0' 85' ~ 3z2' 35' 8 a0' a0' 6 I
166' 60.07'
ts0' I 1 40' i fi0,
I 14200 ~ 566,266"E 400.33'
A I 588012'37"E-398.62'
I 1 0' ~ (CITY GRID) ~ S88D12'42'vJ
- (CITY GRID)
I ~ I
~ I 15400 15300 12TH. AVENUE EAST y, I • (GITYGRI°, -
w j 4s' " 14100 ~ sa' 2 14, I y,
~ j I 10800 10700 9900 9800 9700 1 I- I ~
° a
~ I
' W I w l 7
~ I 14000 w j ~ I
900 800
w '
~ F-
I ° ~ I
" I 1 ~ I
tso' m ~ o ,
I- to _ I 7 "
I - - - 40 q'' 79~ ._.I
w no'-----
~ I 13900 Q I 60, ~ Q !
Q j ,60' O I 9600 w l I 1000 6„
~ ~ 15500 10900 11000 a !
I ~~\r I
I M 0.25 AC I
~ I 3.9' I ,1 s'~ I
13800 103, 4 I 6
I m ts0' I "
' I 5T I ~ 1a 0Q------------
j ~ j 5
I •s ~o
15600 - 66.00' _ I
j 13700 0 l~ 11100 6 9501 5 o I~
> 9500 a > - la
I ~ I~ 0.18AC ~ I~
5
m ~ ~
°
M ~ ~ 1 ~ I s~~
I
° j 3."' > Iv 1500 4
"I
I ts6' ~ I
I I sooo' too' I
15700 15800 13600 I 11200 7 $ j I '
I 9100 9200 9400
I 11300 j I 4 1300 1400
I ~ °
" ~ Q I
j I I 3
67.66' 92.34' iq' I
M tso I 7 9300 j
85' 14' H
0 80'
n 568°09'45"E - 462.96' 80' 80'
(CITY GRIO)-______ I I
14
I 588°°9'36"E-399.6' I
y I _ I
I " ~ (CITY GRID) I
I I___---.----_---_ 566°09'S8_E
I (167') 4' 59' 116' 1 ~ I (CITY GRID)
15900 13500 ! 2 ,66' I 5 ~
I 13400
0.45 Ac I 11500 11400; 9000 1 ~ ~ I 6 ' 1 ~
I j I j 7400 7301 400 ' 3900 ~ s'' 1 I 3q' 43'
I I ~ ;0.14 Ac . ° , ~1 ~ 1900 1800 7
7 I ~ I 1700 1600
I 1 I I I "m PCL1 ~~~i~
o 211600 I 1 I ~ rf0~ I
~~}~p-
o l 3 F N , 3 4 ~ -----------7- ss'
I ~idVU .R. 40', I ~ g °
I N89°58'31"E 90 2000
v I°- 166' I o' to JO
~ ~ I I 6 ~ ~ s43t' 4100 I
16000 ~ , 11700 , IG ~ ~ ' a 3T
m I~ X13200 I I ~ ~i 7302 65' 1 s5' m Io ~0'
a j~ 2 I 8900 o I~ 0.15 2 ~
" ~ 3 60' ss I ~ _ 3700 3 I t 6 s6'
I s0' 4 a "
I is5M1E a N 2 eo PCL2 -----3~ I~
N
r I I 3 °5 '3 " 2100
j 16100 13100 c""~ 3
hl
I , At'~~~ I 11800 I
j , ~ ~ 8800 3600 I
°
" - Q13000 ~ I
j 11902`x' ~ I ------a
I s°s0',6E1s0.as'
I 0.12 AC I I
I ~ - - ioo' - - - - - P 6 5 3500 I ~ 2200 I
o-
I 12800 ~ I " I 0.22 AC ,
' I 40.00'
- ~ I °f I
2' 12900 ,~~~~soo22 z0°s~ 8700 z
I - - - ~ - - - - ~ o S8 °58'38'W 89.67' 7 0' I 4 589° '
0.16 AC ~ gs44^w 12aos'
j 16200 I I 11901 ~ ~ I - - -
i 569°sa'a0•w 60.6' ' , 3200 3 00 5 I 2001
I I rL) ~ j 3400 3
I fi7, 52' I 4 o.16AC , 4~0 s.42565 j 2300 2400 2500
( q° 62' I ° LR PCL 1 " 1~~~ I 0.11 AC
I ~ j 9° ' 9" 5.6 7 4' 166' $ I
I 588°09'56"E-403.24' ~1~ ! 4T 40' 73' ~ I 3
i - \ I I \J 55' 95' 59.99' 1q'
- (CITY GRID) __~_-----------------------------------___---566_07'56"E-399.26'__________ 14TH. AVENUE EAST ~ 'r j
I
V~ fcTV CR1D1 ~ _ _ sa ~zrs3°E-3s6.
53,58'(SUR.) \ -~__-__,___-______-_____I 588°12'32"
I 106'(SUR j- - (CITY GRI
3~ ~
4i
SE MAP
17033232
5~
~
~
16400
50 166'
I q
96300 12700
73,
I 2 'q' „
'
!
-
-c~ITY~RID
~
I
~
o
12200 12000 8600 8500
1 I
50~ 1 ' '
j
o
I
I
j
eo'
8100 8000 7900 310 3000 1 B° 7
I
1
-
I
I
I
o.15AC 2700 2600
I
31°
~
WEST
163
'
12600
2 ~,3' I 1
~~300---- I--- 50
I 3 760'
I
_
I o
1
1 7
_
160'
~
I ~
"
-
.55
16500
> 0.32 AC
3 o
a „ ;
~ 8400 , 8301
~
~ ~
_ _ _ - - _ _ - - -
- 2 t6°'
6
~
I~
86,
~ >
- ~
I ~o.o1AC
m I>
~
00
2 6
8200 2800 u
~
33'
,
s
-1-2500
a
2
N U I I
7.40'
° I I 79.43'
v
3 al I 8300
~ I
~
O
3 ~
D
o
~ ~
6
0
+q' ts0'
I 14' 40.13 AC ts0'
a ~
-
2 ,q ~ U
' 3
ts
I
8
a
~ I
6
~ 7
I ~
33'
33' , 33'
I
566°75'52"W
(CITY GRID)
15
SEE MAP
17033144
.EE MAP
7033233
17033141
EUGENE
LCATCAB - 2013.05.06 08:17
CANCELLED
12500
7300
10200
10300
90001
90002
11900
REVISIONS
07!25!2011 - LCAT142 -CONVERT MAP TO G IS
05!0312013 - LCAT115 - CANC TL 11900 INTO 2013-P2569
EUGENE
17033141
Mr. Eric Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 8
Conclusions
The applicant's overlay of the Tax Lots comprising the Laurel Ridge PUD property, the UGB, the
City Limits, and the centerline of the R-o-W of 30th Avenue onto the Metro Plan Zoning
Designations has been performed in an inappropriate manner.
The most egregious error is the fact that layers of the map consisting of the Tax Lots, UGB, City
Limits and 30th Avenue have been aligned to True North while the Metro Plan Zoning Designation
layer has been left aligned to Grid North of the State Plane Coordinate System, which imparts a 2-
degree clockwise rotation to the Metro Plan.
However, an additional, very significant error has been imparted to the applicant's map by an
inadvertent NW shift of 179 feet of the Tax Lots, UGB, City Limits and 30th Avenue layer relative to
the Metro Plan Zoning Designations layer.
It is possible that the latter error results from the applicant's unconscionable insistence that only
two usable referents are available on the Metro Plan Diagram for establishing the relationship with
the tax lot map. The applicant claims that the only referents available to them are the North Arrow
and the centerline of the Right-of-Way of 30t" Avenue.
In the area in question, the R-o-W width of 30t" Avenue varies from 240 to more than 300 feet.
Along the NW-SE oriented portion of the road located immediately W of much of the PUD's
western boundary, the actual road is located against the western side of the R-o-W. Therefore,
aligning the centerline of the R-o-W with the black line on the Metro Plan Diagram (placed along
the centerline of the actual road) moves the R-o-W centerline significantly west of its actual
position.
LCOG's version of the overlay, on the other hand, utilizing the entire Metro Plan Diagram, can
make use of numerous referents which provide much tighter control on the relationship between
the well-surveyed tax lot map layer and the less well constrained Metro Plan Diagram. For
instance, use of the streets close to Downtown Eugene allows constraint of the Metro Plan
Diagram to within 24 feet in each direction.
Schirmer-Satre's 179-ft offset to the northwest from the LCOG version represents 7.5 times
the "wiggle-room" that is imparted to LCOG's version by the Downtown streets. Therefore,
when combined with the rotation error, and considering the entire Metro Plan Diagram, the
applicant's snippet cannot have been placed in the correct context.
Mr. Erik Berg-Johansen
August 14, 2015
Page 9
Recommendation
It is recommended to deny Zone Change Application 15-005 on the following grounds:
The application fails to meet the following Approval Criteria:
9.8865(l) The proposed change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Metro Plan...
As indicated in the decisions of every entity from the City of Eugene to the Court of Appeals, the
Metro Plan Diagram is applicable to this zone change. The applicant's overlay of the tax lot onto
the Metro Plan Diagram as presented in the site maps accompanying the application is erroneous
in several ways. The layers have been rotated to different references (Oregon State Plane
Coordinate System Grid North for the Metro Plan Zoning Designation Diagram and True North for
everything else).
Moreover, in the western portion of the property, the applicant has inadvertently moved the tax lot
layer 179 feet NW relative to the position where LCOG's maps indicate the tax lot should fall on the
Metro Plan Diagram. In the eastern portion this offset is compounded by the rotation error. This
offset is insupportable when tighter constraints are placed on the relationship between the Metro
Plan Diagram by use of appropriate referents outside the immediate vicinity of the tax lot. The
applicant has arbitrarily chosen to limit their referents to a single, curving line in the immediate
vicinity of the tax lot and to the North Arrow (apparently without consideration of the fact that North
can be relative in a cartographic sense).
Therefore, the applicant's maps and application are not consistent with the provisions of the Metro
Plan.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (541) 729-
4271.
Respectfully submitted,
Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG
Co-Chair, Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
Att: Bill Clingman's response to inquiry regarding overlay
of the GIS system.
onto Tax lot layer
Expires 12/31/2015
CLINGMAN Bill W
Aug 12 at 1:08 PM
To
Gunnar Schlieder
All of our regionally-maintained GIS layers, including site address points, zoning, plan designations, taxlots,
city limits, and many others, are projected into the same State Plane coordinate system, and all of them are
intended to align with the other layers to a degree which meets the various business needs of the end users,
such as planning, elections, assessment and taxation, etc. Historically, a taxlot layer has served as the "base"
against which other layers have been spatially aligned, but all of these GIS layers have individual histories
extending back to before they were first digitized.
Taxlots in Lane County were originally drawn by hand, ink on linen or ink on mylar, one map sheet at a time,
many of which were later converted into CAD drawings, but still just one sheet at a time. The original digitized
GIS taxlots were created and maintained by LCOG but were used only for planning purposes, while the official
taxlots were still maintained, outside the GIS, by Lane County. That first unofficial GIS taxlot layer formed the
original "base" against which other GIS layers were spatially aligned as they were converted from their
hand-drawn forerunners, even though that taxlot layer was considered spatially accurate enough only for
planning purposes.
Over time, the regional GIS layers have evolved in terms of spatial accuracy, maintenance responsibility,
storage architecture, and coordinate system. For example, in 2004, the regional GIS layers were all shifted
from the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) to NAD 83. Because they were all subject to the same
datum shift, their relative spatial alignment with each other was not affected, and the taxlot base was still
considered spatially accurate enough only for planning purposes, and was not an official representation of the
taxlots. In 2006, that original GIS taxlot layer, maintained (for planning purposes only) by LCOG, was replaced
by a new, more spatially accurate, GIS taxlot layer maintained by Lane County as the official source of taxlot
maps (replacing the old CAD and mylar drawings). Due to the increase in spatial accuracy, and the fact that
the old taxlot layer was more inaccurate in some areas than in others, all of the other regional GIS layers
needed to be "spatially adjusted" to align with the new taxlot layer. This work was done in part by LCOG and
in part by other regional GIS partner agencies. The intent was to preserve the relative spatial relationships
between these layers, but again, they are intended to align with each other to a degree which meets the
business needs of the end users, which for the most part, do not require precise registration.
Over the entire history of the regional GIS, some layers have been more precisely aligned (or registered) to the
taxlots than others. For example, annexations (from which City Limits are derived) are defined by legal (metes
and bounds) descriptions, and care is taken to register them to the taxlot layer with some degree of precision.
Most other layers, such as plan designations, including those shown on the Metro Plan Diagram, are not
typically defined by metes and bounds descriptions, and have not been precisely registered to the taxlots.
Prior to the advent of the regional GIS, the Metro Plan Diagram was also originally drawn by hand, and early
versions of the Diagram have sometimes been referred to as "blob diagrams" due to their highly generalized
depictions of the various plan designations. When the Metro Plan designations were first digitized, they were
similarly generalized. Even now, after several iterations of adoption and amendment, it is worth noting that the
only version of the Metro Plan Diagram that is considered official is the one produced at the 11 X 17 size and
scale, on which the designations are depicted over a single-line representation of major streets and roads.