Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Official's decision was issued on December 4, 2015 and concluded that the proposal does not comply with EC 9.8325(6)(a), the "19-Lot Rule". PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE Based on procedural requirements set forth in the Eugene Code (see EC 9.7655), the PC may address only those issues set out in the written appeal statement. Further, the PC limits its consideration to the evidentiary record established before the HO; the PC may not accept new evidence, except that which it officially notices. The City Attorney has advised that the PC should not use its authority to take official notice of material that would be new evidence when it is considering an appeal. The Eugene Code requires that the PC's decision on this appeal be based on whether or not the HO failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the applicable criteria. Those criteria are the Tentative Planned Unit Development Criteria - Needed Housing at EC 9.8325, to the extent they are implicated by the appeal. The PC's role on appeal is to determine whether or not the HO erred in his decision, based on the record of evidence and testimony he had before him. Staff also notes that the primary criterion at issue in this zone change appeal is EC 9.8325(6)(c), which states the following (and the HO concluded was not met): EC 9.8325(6)(c): The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. Although the HO's decision found that the approval criterion at EC 9.8325(3) was met, the appellant also addresses this criterion in his appeal statement (see Assignment of Error #3 below): EC 9.8325(3): The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7). To assist the PC's review, a brief summary of the appeal issues and pertinent record information is provided below related to these two approval criteria; the full appeal statement and a supplemental letter from the appellant are included as Attachments E and F. The HO's full decision is also included as Attachment G. In the event that the PC finds the HO did not err, the PC may simply affirm his decision, or adopt supplemental findings in support of that affirmation. If the PC determines the HO erred and chooses to modify or reverse the decision, the PC is required to provide specific findings of fact as to why the decision was in error. The PC cannot reverse the decision without such findings. The PC's decision must be made in accordance with the procedures for appeals at EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES The appeal at hand is primarily focused on the 19-Lot Rule. At the subject location, the sum of existing lots utilizing West Amazon Drive as the single means of ingress and egress is 36 (which exceeds the allowed number of 19 lots). If approved, the proposed PUD would increase the number to well over 40 Page 2 PC Agenda - Page 2