AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br />December 16, 2013 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division <br />Subject: Appeal of Hearings Official Decision: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />To complete deliberations and take final action on the Oakleigh PUD (PDT 13-1) appeal. The PC's <br />decision -to affirm, reverse, or modify-the Hearings Official's (HO) decision - is due by December 20, <br />2013, in order to meet the 120-day statutory deadline. <br />BACKGROUND INFORMATION <br />This is the second deliberation meeting following the December 5, 2013 public hearing of the Oakleigh <br />PUD appeal (PDT 13-1). At the first deliberation meeting on December 9, 2013, the Planning <br />Commission (PC) received clarification from staff on the record materials and, without taking any <br />formal votes, shared their inclination toward the two overarching issues of transportation and <br />.compatibility. <br />As discussed in the December 9th AIS, the appeal identifies ten primary assignments of error in the <br />Hearings Official's decision. Appeal Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (in part), and 10 focus on traffic impacts <br />associated with the proposed development. Appeal Issues 6 (in part), 7, 8 and 9 are primarily focused <br />on criteria related to compatibility with the surrounding area. The PC began its review of the ten <br />assignments of error with Appeal Issue 6 because it contains arguments related to the two main areas <br />of concern regarding traffic impacts and compatibility. <br />The PC indicated that they were leaning toward agreeing with the. HO's approval., with some <br />modifications to address compatibility and screening. The PC expressed a general comfort with the <br />transportation issues, finding that the traffic impacts were within reason, but requested legal <br />clarification regarding the constitutional requirements for exactions. A memorandum from Anne <br />Davies, Deputy City Attorney, was sent earlier to the PC which addresses those issues, which is <br />included in the attached draft Final Order as Attachment A. Commissioner Jaworksi noted that he may <br />be in the minority in believing that improvements should be built abutting the development site, <br />rather than deferring those improvements with an irrevocable petition. <br />With regard to compatibility, the PC indicated that the buildings abutting the north property line <br />needed to be setback with landscaping installed within this setback to address compatibility. The PC <br />recognized that the required right-of-way for future street, hammerhead; and bicycle/pedestrian path <br />improvements along the north property line would put the abutting building within a foot of the street <br />Page 1 <br />89 <br />