2017 Planning Commission Final Order on Remand (PDT 13-1 Re-Affirmed)

A. Sub-assignment of Error 8.A: the Hearings Official erred in his calculation of the net density area pursuant to EC 9.2751... B. Sub-assignment of Error 8.B: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the concept of "clustering" under EC 9.8300(I)(e). The PC finds that the HO did not err in his calculation of net density by not subtracting public easement areas, as asserted by the appellant. Even if these additional areas are subtracted from the net density calculation, staff's analysis shows and PC affirms that the PUD complies with the net density allowance in R-1 zoning for 14 units per acre. The PC finds that the HO did not err in his understanding of the concept of clustering under EC 9.8300(1); however, as discussed previously under the sixth assignment of error, the PC finds that there appears to be sufficient open space within the development site to accommodate the changes required by the PC, which will result in more clustering of the dwellings within the development site. As discussed under the sixth assignment of error, the PC is modifying the HO's decision to require additional setbacks and landscaping to ensure compliance. Here, as modified, those requirements further the PUD purposes with regard to clustering of dwellings, and are therefore incorporated by reference. Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 33-35 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. Ninth Assignment of Error. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(ii)(k) "Affother applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development: EC 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards." The PC finds that the HO did not err in his interpretation of the solar setback standard and that he was correct in granting an exception pursuant to EC 9.2795(3)(c)(1) Exemptions to Solar Setback Requirements, based on the right-of-way being required along the entire north property line. The HO findings on !;pages 43-50 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. Tenth Assignment of Error. The Hearings Official made a decision that was not supported by substantial, probative and reliable evidence in the whole record; and the Decision improperly construed the applicable law." A. Sub-assignment of Error 10.A: The HO errerd by not adequately considering the preponderance of evidence and analysis in the "Constitutional findings for Exaction" produced by the Eugene Public Works Department (PWD). B. Sub-assignment of Error 10. B: the Hearings Official erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane was not an "access lane." 2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 16