AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br />October 26, 2015 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner <br />Subject: Deliberations: Laurel Ridge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />To deliberate and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official's approval of the <br />Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5). <br />BACKGROUND INFORMATION <br />Extensive background information on this proposal and the previous Hearings Official decision <br />is included in the full record provided separately, as well as the prior Agenda Item Summary <br />(AIS) for the public hearing. <br />On October 20, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider testimony <br />from both the applicant and appellants. The applicant's attorney, Bill Kloos, and project <br />representative, Richard Satre, were present at the hearing and provided oral testimony in <br />support of the Hearings Official's decision, and in response to the appeal. Members of the <br />Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) neighborhood were present to testify in support of their <br />appeal and to recommend that the Planning Commission revise the approval to adopt an <br />alternative boundary line that would include more PRO zoning on the subject site, or otherwise <br />deny the application for lack of compliance with the Metro Plan. <br />Immediately following the public hearing on October 20t", 2015, the Planning Commission <br />began deliberations and asked staff for clarification on pertinent issues. The Commission also <br />passed two motions that ultimately acknowledged the applicant's "motion to strike" and <br />accepted the appellant's revised appeal statement. Due to the limited time available for <br />deliberations following the public hearing, no actions were taken regarding the Planning <br />Commission's direction on substantive issues (i.e. the boundary line between R-1 and PRO <br />zoning, or whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official's decision). <br />As mentioned in the previous AIS for the public hearing, the PC's first step during deliberations <br />is to determine whether or not the HO erred in his decision. In the event the PC decides the HO <br />erred, the PC should use evidence from the record to articulate the exact way(s) in which he <br />erred. Further, if the PC decides an alternative zone boundary line is appropriate, evidence in <br />the record should be used to support a new placement of the line. <br />PC Agenda - Page 1 <br />