<br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br />January 28, 2025 <br /> <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />From: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division <br /> <br />Subject: Deliberations: Appeal of Hearings Official’s Decision on Tentative Planned Unit <br />Development and Tentative Subdivision Application for Braewood Hills 3rd Addition <br />(City Files: PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) <br /> <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />On January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission will begin deliberations on an appeal of the Eugene <br />Hearings Official’s decision denying Tentative Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision <br />applications for Braewood Hills 3rd Addition. The appellant, who is the applicant for the proposal, <br />has requested that the Planning Commission modify or reverse the Hearings Official’s decision by <br />resolving a series of asserted errors related to evidence, findings, and conditions, and approve the <br />Tentative Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision. <br /> <br />BRIEFING STATEMENT <br />This Agenda Item Summary (AIS) is provided as a follow-up to the Planning Commission’s public <br />hearing on the appeal, which was held on January 14, 2025. To facilitate the Planning Commission’s <br />deliberations, staff has provided a Draft Final Order included as Attachment A, which is largely based <br />on the information and staff recommendations provided in the prior AIS and packet materials for <br />the public hearing on the appeal. It also includes several changes and additions in response to <br />testimony received as part of the appeal proceedings to date. The Hearings Official’s decision <br />denying the applications is also included as an attachment to the Draft Final Order. <br /> <br />The attached Draft Final Order addresses each appeal issue and Planning Commission’s <br />determinations with respect to each one, as a starting point for deliberations. It is not intended to <br />reflect the ultimate outcome of the final decision, but rather, it provides analysis and incorporates <br />the findings and conclusions, with conditions, that would be necessary in the event that Planning <br />Commission agrees with staff’s recommendation and decides to reverse and modify the Hearings <br />Official’s decision, thereby approving the applications on appeal. <br /> <br />As a reminder, the Planning Commission’s role in this appeal is to serve as a “quasi-judicial” <br />decision-maker. The Planning Commission is being asked to act as an impartial decision-maker in <br />determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official’s decision based on the <br />applicable approval criteria and the evidence and argument in the record. <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 4 of 42