Eugene Planning Commission <br />Hearings Official Errors - PDT 13-1 Testimony from Bryn 1homs <br />9th Assi ent of Error <br />The Decision erred byfinding the application met the following approval criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(11) <br />(k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in <br />the application except where the applicant ha!w shown that a proposed <br />noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of <br />Planned Unit Development.' <br />9.2795 Solar Setback Standards <br />ne Hearings Official erred in his interpretation of the solar setbacks pursuant to EC 9.2795. <br />Although the solar setbacks may be modified, the Hearings Official is required to understand <br />the extent of the modification to determine if it is consistent with the purposes of the P UD <br />ordinance. 7 hd error made by the Hearings Official was to measure the solar setback from <br />the existing property line rather than the property line established by the required <br />dedications. <br />There is likely other testimony regarding this issue. The Hearing's Official's argument is not <br />very strong. He simply uses the rest of the PUD code and relies on the fact that all the other <br />PUD Code is met therefore this one must be met It seems to me, that the City would not have <br />put this code in, if it didn't stand on its own. Why bother having it in here if everything else <br />meets code. It's not met with this PUD project and that is why the Hearing's Official is having a <br />hard time denying it with real evidence. The incompatibility of the proposed PUD is further' <br />explained in the narrative for the 6t' assigurnent of error, presented above. <br />Based on these errors and similar testimony regarding the errors made by the City and the <br />Hearing's Official, I urge the PC to deny the tentative approval of this PUD. <br />Sincerely, <br />Bryn T homs <br />135 Oakleigh Lane <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />307 <br />