FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL <br />DECISION: LAURELRIDGE PUD (Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6 and SDR 12-5) <br />i. lid T RODUCTiON <br />This Final Order concerns an appeal of the decision by the Eugene Hearings Official (HO) to <br />deny a zone change, tentative PUD, Traffic Impact Analysis and Standards Review request for <br />LaurelRidge PUD.' The applications request approval of a Zone Change from AG Agriculture to <br />R-1 Low density residential, as well as a concurrent Tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD), <br />Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Standards Review approval for a multi-phased residential <br />development totaling 608 dwelling units (including both single-family and multi-family units). <br />The subject site is located at the southern end of the Laurel Hill Valley on the south side of East <br />30b) Avenue. <br />On September 17, 2013, the HO issued his decision finding that the zone change and PUD <br />requests were not consistent with the applicable approval criteria related to consistency with <br />the Metro Plan: As the zone change is a threshold issue needed to facilitate the development, <br />he denied the PUD, TIA and Standards Review applications also. He did not issue an advisory <br />opinion on the approval criteria applicable to the three applications above, because denial of <br />the zone change dispensed with any need to do so. <br />On September 27, 2013, Rick Satre on behalf of Ralph Nauman of Environ-Metal Properties LLC, <br />filed an official Appeal Statement that included two assignments of error. First, the appeal. <br />asserted that the HO erred in finding the zone.change request was not consistent with the <br />Metro Plan and the Laurel Hill Plan. Second, as the HO should have-approved the zone change, <br />he should have also addressed the other applications. The Planning Commission (PC) held a <br />public hearing on the appeal on October 1, 2013. The PC subsequently deliberated on the <br />matter on October 7, 2013. <br />As required by the Eugene Code, the appeals are based on the record and limited to the <br />assignments of error contained in the appeal statements submitted. As described below in <br />Section lll. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the PC resolves the assignments of error <br />through affirmation of the HO decision. <br />IL RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />EC 9.7655(2) limits the nature of evidence that the PC can consider on appeal as follows: "The <br />record from the proceeding of the Hearings Official shall be forwarded -to the appeal review <br />authority. No new evidence pertaining to the appeal issues shall be accepted.". The PC's <br />decision on the appeal is based upon consideration'of all relevant evidence and argument <br />within the official record. <br />Final Order - Laureâ–ºRidge PUD <br />(Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5) October 14, 2013 Page 1 <br />4 <br />