Appeal Decision (Final Order of COE Plng Comm Dec 16 2013)

Attachment A Date: December 11, 2013 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Anne C. Davies Subject: Oakleigh PUD PDT 13-01 The Planning Commission has asked for guidance on a couple of issues prior to continuing deliberations on the Oakleigh PUD. 1.Bothman v. City of Eugene The first assignment of error in the appeal statement asserts that the Planning Commission must address two Metro Plan policies that the hearings official failed to address (Metro Plan Policy F.26 and Metro Plan Policy F.36). The appellant argues that the Planning Commission must address these policies even though they are not worded as mandatory approval criteria. The general rule is that a comprehensive plan or refinement plan policy need not be addressed in a specific land use action (such as this PUD) unless the policy uses mandatory language that would make it an applicable approval criterion. However, there are some instances where the language of a policy is not mandatory, but where the language could require the Planning C Bothman office and commercial uses located along the west side of Coburg Road, north of Willakenzie n a request to rezone several properties within that area from C-1 and GO to C-2, the Planning Commission policy would play depends on the actual text and context of the policy at issue. The two polices raised by the appellant in this case are not like the policy at issue in Bothman with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of apacity impact on mandatory approval standards. Letter dated December 5 from Zack Mittge. Further, unlike the policies in Bothman, where the policies actually sought to discourage the exact planning action that was being proposed, the text and context of these policies do not appear to require any additional consideration for the proposed PUD. The Planning Commission should include {00108854;1 }