Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 24, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />staff will be required to send out notice of the public hearing at least 10 days prior to the <br />schedule hearing date. The Planning Commission must conduct a hearing, deliberate and take <br />action within the required 90-day timeframe. <br />Option #2: Do not re-open the record. The Planning Commission may impose the condition <br />adopted by the Hearings Official or it may impose its own condition. <br />LUBA did not require that the record be re-opened. LUBA left it up to the City to <br />determine the appropriate process on remand. Based on the record to this point (up to and <br />including any testimony provided by Mr. Trautman during the remand hearing), the Planning <br />Commission can determine what condition of approval is adequate to demonstrate compliance <br />with EC 9.8320(3). Under this option, no further process is necessary. <br />Option #3: Re-open the written record only for written testimony, limited to the landscaping <br />issue. <br />The Planning Commission can decide to re-open the written record to accept new <br />evidence related to the landscape screening issue. If the Planning Commission chooses this <br />option, the Planning Commission should set a limited period of time for all parties to present <br />new written testimony and evidence addressing the issue of compliance or non-compliance with <br />the approval criterion at EC 9.8320(3). The commission could provide a 7 to 14-day period for <br />all parties to respond to the new evidence, and then a final rebuttal period for the applicant. The <br />Planning Commission would then need to deliberate and issue a final decision based on the <br />materials in the record. <br />B. Remaining Issues <br />Once the Planning Commission has completed whatever process it decides is appropriate <br />for the landscaping remand issue, it will then need to determine whether any of the testimony <br />presented by Mr. Trautman requires re-consideration of any of the Planning Commission's <br />previous findings on other applicable approval criteria. If the Planning Commission determines <br />that the testimony by Mr. Trautman has been adequately addressed in previous findings, the <br />Planning Commission may simply re-adopt its original findings. <br />V. Conclusion <br />The Planning Commission initially approved the proposed PUD with a number of <br />conditions, including the condition of approval regarding landscape screening on the eastern <br />boundary of the property. On appeal, LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission's decision <br />except for the landscape screening condition of approval. The Planning Commission must. <br />consider the new testimony presented by Mr. Trautman, and new evidence accepted (if any) <br />regarding the landscape screening issue to determine whether that testimony changes any of the <br />findings the Planning Commission adopted with regard to the application when it first heard the <br />appeal. If the testimony does not provide a basis to overturn the Planning Commission's previous <br />City of Eugene • 125 E. 8th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-8447 • 541-682-5414 Fax <br />www,eugene-or.gov <br />(00173489;1) <br />