2017 Remand - Planning Commission Staff Report

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 22, 2017 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division Subject: 2017 Remand Deliberations: Oakleigh Co-housing PUD (City File PDT 13-1) ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission will hold deliberations on the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of the Oakleigh Cohousing tentative PUD application (PDT 13-1). The Planning Commission will consider the entire Oakleigh Co-housing tentative PUD record, including evidence and testimony submitted during the recent open record period, and then decide whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official's approval of the tentative PUD application. BACKGROUND The City received the tentative PUD application for Oakleigh Meadows Co-housing in April of 2013. The City's Hearings Official approved the tentative PUD application in November of 2013. The Hearing's Official's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. On December 16, 2013, the Planning Commission approved the application. The Planning Commission's 2013 decision was appealed up through the Oregon court system. Because the City did not give notice of the original 2013 Planning Commission hearing to a particular individual, the court decided that the City was required to hold a second public hearing on the application. That second hearing took place in 2015. Consistent with the court's ruling, the City's notice for the 2015 hearing explained that: • At the 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission would accept testimony only from the development applicant and from the individual who did not receive notice in 2013. Other people could not provide testimony to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would base its decision on the evidence submitted into the record during the 2013 process; it would accept only arguments from the applicant and the particular individual who did not receive notice in 2013, and would reject any new evidence about the proposal. However, during the deliberations that followed the 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission decided to proceed differently than described in the 2015 hearing notice. The Planning Commission decided to re-open the record to accept additional written evidence (not only arguments) pertaining to the safety of the access to the development site in terms of: (1) the right-of-way width of Oakleigh Lane; (2) the pavement width of Oakleigh Lane; and (3) parking on Oakleigh Lane. In addition, the Planning Commission accepted testimony on those issues from other people, not Page 1 Page 1