Neighborhood Applicant Meeting - An additional preliminary matter relates to the neighborhood meeting <br />requirements. The initial neighborhood/applicant meeting required by EC 9.7007 was held on June 8, <br />2010. EC 9.7007(12) requires applications be submitted within 180 days of the meeting. The applicant <br />submitted the PUD application within the 180 days of the meeting but later also submitted the concurrent <br />CUP application more than 180 days from the meeting. The application was deemed incomplete because <br />of this requirement. The applicant invoked its right under statute to "force" the application complete, as <br />the proposed development in the CUP application never substantially changed from what the applicant <br />provided at the initial neighborhood meeting. <br />Appeal Fees - Bill Kloos, on behalf of the Oakway Neighbors, raises the issue of appeal fees in testimony. <br />The City of Eugene's Appeal fees are set by administrative order. It is understood that the issue has been <br />raised to prepare for a possible local appeal of the decision to the Planning Commission. At this point no <br />appeal has been filed so no further response to the appeal fee issue is included at this time. <br />Staff Evaluation: <br />As required by the Type III land use application procedures beginning at EC 9.7300, the Hearings Official <br />must review any PUD application and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as to whether the <br />proposed use is consistent with the criteria required for approval (shown below in bold typeface). Based <br />on the evidence available as of the date 'of this staff report, the following findings and recommendations <br />are presented. <br />The Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative planned unit <br />development application with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or approving <br />with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following criteria at EC 9.8320: <br />EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan. <br />The Metro Plan land use diagram designates the area of the subject property for Parks and Open <br />Space use. The Parks and Open Space designation includes existing publicly owned parks as well as <br />publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries. Testimony provided asserts that a <br />telecommunications ,facility is not consistent with the open space designation in the Metro Plan. The <br />existing zoning of R-1 Low Density Residential with the Parks and Open Space (POS) designation does <br />not inherently conflict as the primary golf course use is allowed in R-1 per EC 9.2750. Buildings <br />supporting this use are allowed. While the cell tower will be added on the golf course, the primary use <br />of the development site as a privately owned golf course will not change. The Planned Unit <br />Development and Conditional Use Permit criteria regarding compatibility found below can <br />appropriately be used to address the impacts of the cell tower on the "open space". The Metro Plan <br />has no provisions expressly prohibiting telecommunications facilities or other structures in areas <br />designated POS. <br />The applicant's written statement provides general findings of consistency with regard to adopted <br />Growth Management, Residential Land Use, Environmental Design, Transportation, Public Facilities <br />and Citizen Involvement sections of the Metro Plan. Specific policies are not addressed. While many <br />of these policies provide broad directives to the local government, contain aspirational language, or <br />are inapplicable and thus do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for the proposed PUD, there <br />are several that are addressed below to provide context to the decision making process. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 3 <br />HO Agenda -Page 1 <br />