HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit HE #1August 26, 2015
LAURELRIDGE
Zone Change Application
File Number Z 15-5
Hearing Official Public Hearing
APPLICANT TESTIMONY
(-deceived in Public Hearing
City of Eugene Planning & Development
AU6 2 6 2015
File-#: Z. 15-5
Fxhibit
Opening Remarks.
1. Hello and Introductions.
2. We would like to thank staff for their assistance in processing our application.
3. As for staff's recommendation of approval, let's review a few highlights from their staff report.
Staff Report.
1. Staff points out, that in the applicant's previous zone change application for the subject
property, LUBA affirmed the Hearings Official and Planning Commission decisions and
confirmed the following important findings:
1. The POS designation is clearly shown on a portion of the subject site;
2. The Metro Plan diagram takes precedence over the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map;
3. The UGB and East 301h Avenue right-of-way are appropriate referents in determining
the correct location for POS designation.
2. In that regard, the applicant generated the application before you this evening. Let's take a
look at how the application complies with applicable criteria.
EC 9.8865(1): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of
the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro
Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
Metro Plan Diagram
1. As staff notes: "The question before the Hearings Official is whether the applicant has
provided reliable, relevant and credible evidence that supports their proposed zoning
configuration." (Staff Report page 3, HO Agenda page 17, last para.)
2. As LUBA said in their decision: "7t may be possible to scale up the digital version 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" (Staff
Report page 4, HO Agenda page 18, first para.)
3. Well ...the applicant has done just that.
4. Consistent with LUBA's findings, we scaled up the Metro Plan diagram, employed the
aforementioned referents and aligned the Metro Plan diagram with the subject
property's boundary survey.
5. We did this using the referents as follows:
Referent #1 - 30th Avenue: We followed the suggestion of LUBA and scaled up the
2004 Diagram and registered it with the subject property. How'd we do that? Well:
a. On the Metro Plan diagram, 301h Avenue is a single black line.
b. We knew that the black line was representing 301h Avenue (and not
its variable width right-of-way or anything else) just as other
primary roadways are shown as single black lines (and nothing
else) on the diagram.
c. Thus, our challenge was to align the subject property in relation to
the black line. !No
d. The black line has been in the same location on the diagram since
the diagram's inception in 1982.
+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS t
375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 SCHIRMER
PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 1 ax: 541.686.4577 I -
tivww.schiuiiersatre.c~m =
LaurelRidge Page 2 of 5
Zone Change Application - Hearings Official - Public Hearing - Applicant Testimony
August 26, 2015
e. 30th Avenue was there in 1982. It's a constructed, physical object. It hasn't
changed.
f. Thus, we obtained a drawing of the legal centerline from the project's surveyor,
with the centerline located in relation to the subject property's boundary survey.
• NOTE: we're talking here in terms of "boundary survey", not "tax lot."
• The subject property's boundary was measured and surveyed, confirmed and
located, in the field (and aligned with the metes and bounds description of the
UGB where the UGB is adjacent to the subject property).
• We all know that tax lots, which are not on the Metro Plan diagram by the way,
are famously not accurate. They are, more often than not, mere
"representations." Metes and bounds can be scribed into legal descriptions,
from which a boundary survey can be generated. That's what we did.
• So, keep in mind, throughout our application, our methodology, exhibits and
testimony, we're talking about the subject property's boundary survey, not tax
lot. The work we did here is very accurate.
g. Okay, so, doing this, we knew where the subject property was in relation to 30th
Avenue's centerline.
h. Then, using the Metro Plan diagram, at the same scale as the subject property, we
aligned the 30th Avenue centerline with the black line on the Metro Plan diagram.
i. With that, we knew where Referent #1, 301h Avenue, was in relation to the subject
property.
Referent #2 - North Arrow: Staff states that the North Arrow is not a physical
referent. They are correct. But it is a very important, and useful, referent. Why? Well:
a. We're required to use the Metro Plan diagram. The diagram has a north arrow.
b. We're to align the Metro Plan diagram with the subject property. The subject
property survey was generated in relation to north. (As are all surveys... metes and
bounds...northings and southings...etc).
c. What other way could we possibly align these two data sources but to do so in
relation to the compass? To skew one would be to skew the results.
d. We did not do that. We kept both the diagram and the survey oriented in the same
direction. We now have an accurate, honest representation of the diagram and the
subject property in relation to each other.
Referent #3 - The UGB: Here are things that are true about the UGB.
a. Just like the north arrow, the UGB is not a physical referent. You can't go out there
in the field and see it. You can't point to it and say "There it is over yonder." It
does not exist that way. Thus, the UGB is not physical.
b. Unlike 301h Avenue, which is a physical referent, and the north arrow, which is
precise, the UGB is generalized. Indeed, when scaling up the Metro Plan diagram,
one discovers that the graphic symbol depicting the UGB is a series of wavy, free-
hand parallel lines. (See applicant's Exhibit G, Sheet ZC-3.) A line which scales
some 250 feet wide. Thus, the UGB is imprecise.
c. Furthermore, with the subject property's annexation in 2007, the UGB, as it borders
the subject property, was reduced to a precise metes and bounds description. This
metes and bounds UGB does not match the Metro Plan diagram UGB. Thus, the
UGB is not accurate.
d. Nonetheless, we do agree that the UGB can be a useful referent. It is useful in
terms of generally documenting that, yes, there is some amount of POS north of
the UGB.
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 41h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 3 of 5
Zone Change Application - Hearings Official - Public Hearing - Applicant Testimony
August 26, 2015
e. In addition, the text of the Metro Plan says that the UGB shown on the diagram at
this location is generalized, and its exact location is not determined until
annexation.
"The UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has
been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the outside
edge of existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places, the UGB is determined
on a case-by-case basis through interpretation of the Metro Plan Plan Boundaries
Map in this Metro Plan and the following factors (see Metro Plan Plan Boundaries
Map Key)." (Metro Plan at II-G-14)
f. In summary, we did not ignore the UGB. We used it. It is shown on our application
exhibit. Whereas the UGB cannot be used to accurately align the subject property
with the Metro Plan Diagram, it can be used, as we've all said, to show that there is
some amount of POS north of the UGB.
At this point, regarding the Metro Plan Diagram, staff concludes by stating:
"...staff has evaluated the proposed zoning configuration proposed by the applicant
compared to the configuration as represented on the currently adopted 2004 Metro
Plan Diagram (11'x17'). Staff ultimately concludes that this proposal provides a
reasonable representation of the Metro Plan Diagram." (Staff Report, page 5, HO
Agenda page 19, second para.)
After some brief discussion regarding Metro Plan Text, staff concludes their findings
regarding criteria EC 9.8865(1) with the following statement:
As stated earlier, staff believes the applicant's representation of the Metro Plan's
Parks and Open Space designation is reasonable considering the limited precision that
can be afforded by the relatively generalized Metro Plan Diagram." (Staff Report page
6, HO Agenda page 20, second para.)
"Based on these findings, the proposal is consistent with EC 9.8865(1).
8. After brief discussion regarding the remaining criteria, staff concludes its staff report
with the statement:
"Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff
recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to R-1/PD/WR
and PRO/PD/WR." (Staff Report page 8, HO Agenda page 22, second para.)
This concludes our comments regarding the staff report. We appreciate their recommendation to
approve.
III. Laurel Hill Valley Citizen's Testimony
Pertinent Take-Away's from the Neighborhood Association's Testimony
Comments below are in reference to the neighborhood association's August 14, 2015 letter
included in the Staff Report as Exhibit C. Page references below are the page number of that
letter.
Page 2, first paragraph, references Sheet SA-7.0 from the previous application. Let's be
clear about what that sheet was (and wasn't):
a. That sheet is one of seven in a set of plan sheets titled "Site Analysis."
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 ht Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 4 of 5
Zone Change Application - Hearings Official - Public Hearing - Applicant Testimony
August 26, 2015
b. Those sheets were generated very early in the previous process.
C. They were not generated as the basis for a zone change application, or any land use
application for that matter.
d. They were generated as part of an initial data-gathering task.
e. They were to serve as the basis for a preliminary, conceptual site design exercise.
f. There was no single source of data utilized. There was no alignment, no registration,
and no precise methodology.
g. Referring to it as the basis for Metro Plan diagram interpretation is contrary to its
purpose.
2. Page 3, second paragraph, references a 2014 position by City of Eugene parks staff
indicating that there is about 40 acres in POS on the subject site.
a. What methodology did they use to arrive at that figure?
b. Where is the documentation of that meeting and of their statement?
C. What diagram could they have possibly used?
3. Page 3, last paragraph, says it is likely the applicant used a digital copy of the Metro Plan
diagram to scale up.
a. No, we didn't.
b. A digital copy is not the official diagram.
C. We used a paper copy of the official adopted 2004 diagram.
4. Page 4 includes language about using the Oregon State Plane Coordinate System. It
includes narrative stating that the Metro Plan diagram appears to be rotated, that the north
arrow is similarly rotated, and that this requires significant work-arounds. This may be true.
But it does not matter. As LUBA declared, the adopted 2004 Metro Plan diagram is the
diagram. It is the one which must be used.
a. We used the official, adopted, paper copy 2004 Metro Plan diagram. We scaled it up to
a scale matching the subject property's boundary survey and aligned the two. We did
not use digital. We did not stretch. We did not rotate.
b. Question: If the Metro Plan diagram is rotated, does that mean that every zone change
that used the diagram, since the diagram's inception in 1982, might be based on a
rotation? And might be in error?
Page 5, last paragraph, includes a statement that the applicant's 301h Avenue centerline is
less than perfect; that the alignment of the centerline falls apart further away from the subject
property. Let's clarify that:
a. The center line is very exact. It is a drawing of the legal centerline of 301h Avenue. It
was located in relation to the subject property's boundary survey.
b. But, yes, the further afield one goes from the subject property, the more the centerline
is challenging to align with the diagram. We looked at that. The question became, "Do
we align the subject property in the immediate vicinity of the property or do we look at
roadways or intersections further away?" If 30th and Spring Blvd mattered, why not 30th
and 1-5? Why not River Road and Beltline? Or 581h and Main Street in Springfield?
C. The point is, that a segment of 30th Avenue is immediately adjacent to the subject
property's west boundary. And since our task is to locate the subject property in
relation to 301h Avenue, nothing could be more accurate than aligning with 30th Avenue
where it is immediately adjacent.
6. Page 6, first paragraph, begins with an assertion that the applicant "...has moved the tax lot,
city limits, UGB and road centerline layers..." Here, too, we need to be clear:
a. The applicant has not 'moved' anything. We were not working with a digital plan. We
were not working with layers.
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 m Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 5 of 5
Zone Change Application - Hearings Official - Public Hearing - Applicant Testimony
August 26. 2015
7. That same paragraph makes reference to "...versions of the Tax-Lot-Layer-on-Metro-Plan-
Diagram obtained from LCOG vs. the applicant's version on their sheet ZC-4." Again:
a. The "Tax-Lot-Layer-on-Metro-Plan-Diagram obtained from LCOG", whatever the heck
that is, is not the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. It cannot be used.
Page 6, second paragraph, asks the question "...which map version is correct...'?
a. What does that mean "...which map version...'? There is only one map, the adopted
2004 diagram. There is no other map.
b. Or is there? Is the neighborhood association asking that the HO should rule that there
is more than one map? Or perhaps amend the existing adopted diagram to account for
the rotation?
C. No. Probably not. After all, all of the diagrams included in the neighborhood
association's letter include the word "Unofficial" in the legend.
d. Even Mr. Clingman, the GIS specialist from LCOG concludes his email by saying:
"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 11x17 size and scale, on which the designations are depicted over a
single-line representation of major streets and roads."
III. Closing Summary.
1. We followed LUBA's direction.
a. We used the adopted 2004 Metro Plan diagram.
b. We used the identified "referents."
C. We aligned the subject property with the Metro Plan diagram.
d. And determined plan designation boundaries on the site.
As staff concludes.
a. "...staff has evaluated the proposed zoning configuration proposed by the applicant
compared to the configuration as represented on the currently adopted 2004 Metro
Plan Diagram (11'x17'). Staff ultimately concludes that this proposal provides a
reasonable representation of the Metro Plan Diagram."
b. As stated earlier, staff believes the applicant's representation of the Metro Plan's
Parks and Open Space designation is reasonable considering the limited precision that
can be afforded by the relatively generalized Metro Plan Diagram."
As staff recommends.
a. ""Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff
recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to R-
11PD/WR and PRO/PD/WR."
4. We are available for questions.
5. Thank you.
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540