the LUBA appeal. On the substance of the appeal, LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission's <br />decision on all issues but one-LUBA determined that the Planning Commission's decision <br />removing any requirement for landscape buffering on the east side of the property failed to <br />satisfy an applicable approval criterion. <br />On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court determined that LUBA should have allowed Mr. <br />Trautman to participate as a party before LUBA. LUBA then remanded the matter to the City to <br />provide Mr. Trautman the notice that it should have provided in the first instance. The City has <br />since provided that required notice to Mr. Trautman. <br />The Hearings Official's decision, Planning Commission's Final Order, and the related LUBA and <br />Court of Appeals decisions are attached for ease of reference. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE <br />Public Hearing <br />The purpose of the public hearing is to remedy the procedural error that occurred in 2013 and <br />to allow Simon Trautman to testify before the Planning Commission. Accordingly, presentation <br />of testimony is limited to Mr. Trautman and the applicant. All others who appeared on the <br />interested parties list during the initial proceeding were provided notice of the hearing and may <br />attend the hearing, but are not entitled to testify at the hearing. Mr. Trautman is entitled to <br />testify on any issue that was raised in the local notice of appeal even though his original written <br />testimony, dated September 1, 2013, to the Hearings Official related only to the safety of <br />Oakleigh Lane. <br />Testimony before the Planning Commission in a local appeal hearing from the hearings official <br />is limited to evidence that was presented to the hearings official. Accordingly, the planning <br />commission should not accept new evidence during this public hearing. Further, testimony is <br />limited to those issues that were raised in the original notice of appeal, which is attached for <br />reference. <br />DELIBERATIONS ON REMAND <br />Trautman Testimony <br />The Planning Commission initially approved the PUD with a number of conditions, including the <br />condition of approval regarding landscape screening on the eastern boundary of the property. <br />LUBA then affirmed that decision except for the landscape screening condition of approval. The <br />Planning Commission must consider the new testimony presented by Mr. Trautman and <br />determine whether that testimony changes any of the findings it adopted with regard to the <br />application when it first heard the appeal. The Planning Commission may choose to confirm its <br />previous findings, or it may adopt revised findings based on Mr. Trautman's new testimony. <br />Landscape Screening Issue <br />With regard to the landscape screening issue, which LUBA remanded, the Planning Commission <br />will have to determine how it wishes to proceed. <br />2 <br />PC Agenda - Page 2 <br />