AttachmentA <br />Date: December 11, 2013 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: AnneC. Davies <br />Subject: Oakleigh PUDPDT13-01 <br />The PlanningCommission has asked for guidance on acouple ofissues prior to <br />continuing deliberations onthe Oakleigh PUD. <br />1.Bothman v. Cityof Eugene <br />The first assignment of error inthe appeal statement asserts thatthePlanning <br />Commission must addresstwo MetroPlan policies thatthe hearings officialfailed toaddress <br />Metro Plan Policy F.26and Metro PlanPolicy F.36). The appellantarguesthatthePlanning <br />Commission must address these policies even thoughthey arenot worded asmandatory approval <br />criteria. <br />The general ruleis that acomprehensive plan orrefinement plan policy need notbe <br />addressed ina specific land useaction (such as this PUD) unless the policy uses mandatory <br />language thatwouldmake it anapplicable approval criterion. However, thereare some instances <br />wherethe language ofa policyis not mandatory, but where thelanguage could requirethe <br />Planning C <br />Bothman <br />office and commercial uses locatedalong the west sideof Coburg Road, north ofWillakenzie <br />na requestto <br />rezone several propertieswithin that areafrom C-1 and GOtoC-2, thePlanningCommission <br />policy would play depends on the actual text andcontext ofthe policy atissue. <br />The two polices raised by theappellantin this case arenotlike thepolicy at issuein <br />Bothman <br />with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, andconvenience of <br />apacity impact on <br />mandatory approval standards. Letter dated December 5 from Zack Mittge. Further, unlike the <br />policies in Bothman, where the policiesactuallysought to discourage the exact planning action <br />that was being proposed, the text andcontext of these policies do not appear to require any <br />additional consideration for the proposed PUD. The PlanningCommission shouldinclude <br />00108854;1 } <br />294