1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />6 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITY ATTORNEYS <br />OFFICE - <br />125 E. a Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone (541) 682-8447 <br />Fax (541) 682-5414 <br />Applicant sought approval of a 29-dwelling unit (including a <br />community building) PUD on land zoned low density residential (R-1). The <br />currently vacant development site is approximately 2.3 acres and lies at the <br />east end of a dead-end road, Oakeigh Lane. Oakleigh Lane terminates on <br />its west end where it intersects with River Road, a north-south running major <br />arterial. To the east of the subject property is a city park, which is, in turn, <br />bordered by the Willamette River on its eastern boundary.. Otherwise, the <br />property is generally surrounded by single-family dwellings on individual <br />lots and undeveloped lots that have potential for future residential <br />development. <br />The Hearings Official conducted a hearing and approved the <br />application with fifteen conditions of approval. Neighbor opponents <br />appealed that approval to the City's Planning Commission, which conducted <br />an on-the-record hearing. A main focus of the issues raised in the local <br />appeal concerned the sole access to the property via Oakleigh Lane. The <br />Planning Commission, for the most part, agreed with the decision of the <br />Hearings Official and affirmed. <br />This appeal followed. <br />III. JURISDICTION <br />The City accepts the Petitioners' and Intervenor-Petitioners' <br />statements of jurisdiction. <br />IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />A. Introduction <br />The main objections Intervenor' and Petitioners raise relate to the <br />1 There are two intervenor-petitioners in this appeal, Simon Trautman and <br />Paul Conte. In this Brief of Respondent, the City only responds to <br />arguments raised in the opening brief of Intervenor-Petitioner Conte. <br />Page 2 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />