AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br />August 17, 2015 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division <br />Subject: Remand Deliberations: Oakleigh Co-housing PUD (City File PDT 13-1) <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />To deliberate and take action on a remand decision from the Land Use Board of Appeals <br />(LUBA), concerning an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official's tentative approval for Oakleigh <br />Co-housing PUD (PDT 13-1). <br />BACKGROUND INFORMATION <br />Extensive background information on this remand and previous decisions relating to the <br />Oakleigh Co-Housing PUD is included in the full record provided separately, as well as the prior <br />Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and City Attorney memo for the public hearing on this matter. <br />Please refer to those materials as necessary for purposes of deliberating on the remaining <br />matters to be resolved as part of the remand. <br />On July 28, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider testimony from <br />Simon Trautman, as required on remand. Mr. Trautman was not present and did not provide <br />any oral testimony. However, the day before the hearing, written testimony along with <br />numerous attachments was submitted with the signature of Mr. Trautman and provided to <br />commissioners prior to close of the public hearing and record. The applicant's attorney, Zack <br />Mittge was present at the hearing and provided oral testimony in support of the application, <br />and in response to the written testimony submitted. <br />Following the close of the hearing and record, commissioners had a number of questions with <br />regard to procedural requirements and admissible evidence, as to what materials would be <br />allowed as part of the remand deliberations. Staff and the City Attorney provided some initial <br />advice about what could be considered under "official notice" provisions under EC 9.7095(1), <br />and offered to provide a follow-up memo that would more specifically address what items in <br />the Trautman testimony should be allowed, or otherwise be rejected as inadmissible new <br />evidence. That memo is included as Attachment A. <br />The Planning Commission also decided not to re-open the record on the landscaping issue, <br />which is the only other substantive issue not affirmed by LUBA on appeal. As a result, the <br />commission will need to rely on the existing record to deliberate on resolving that issue <br />concerning "adequate screening" along the eastern property boundary. <br />PC Agenda - Page 1 <br />