I of Eugene, 44 Or LUBA 127 (2003). On remand, the city requested that petitioners first modify <br />2 the 1995 CUP, to remove the 15.8-acre Zone 6 area from the footprint of the CUP masterplan, <br />3 before proceeding with the CIR CUP application- The petitioners requested that the city suspend <br />4 consideration of the CIR-CUP application, and subsequently filed the instant application to modify <br />5 the 1995 CUP to excise the Zone 6 area from the footprint of the CUP masterplan. <br />6 Staff accepted the modification application as complete, but recommended that the scope of <br />7 the application be expanded to include modifications necessary to allow new uses in Zone 6 to <br />8 access roads and utilities in other parts of the property that would remain subject to the 1995 CUP. <br />9 Petitioners revised the application in accordance with the staff recommendation. The city planning <br />10 director approved the modification application on October 31, 2003. <br />11 Intervenors, among others, q)pealed the planning director's decision to the city hearings <br />12 officer, who held a public hearing on December 17, 2003. Two days prior to the public hearing, on <br />13 December 15, 2003, petitioners requested in writing that the hearings officer include in her decision <br />14 a determination as to whether Zone 6 could be developed with uses otherwise allowed in the R 1 <br />15 zone, such as residential uses, without modifying the 1995 CUP. On January 16, 2004, the <br />16 hearings officer issued a decision that (1) &4ermined that modification of the 1995 CUP is <br />17 necessary, but (2) denied the requested modification to excise Zone 6 from the CUP masterplan <br />18 footprint and the related request to allow uses in Zone 6 to access roads and utilities in other CUP <br />19 areas under the masterplan. <br />20 This appeal followed. <br />21 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />22 Petitioners contend that the hearings officer failed to adequately address or resolve <br />23 petitioners' request for a determination as to whether Zone 6 could be developed with uses allowed <br />24 in the R 1 zone without a modification of the 1995 CUP. To the extent the hearings officer <br />25 adequately resolved that issue, petitioners argue, the hearings officer incorrectly concluded that <br />26 modification of the 1995 CUP was necessary. <br />Page 5 <br />