My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (06)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (06)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:42:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
300
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
8 <br />approximately 275 yards of the proposed PUD. When Mr. Trautman received <br />notice of the proposal, he was alarmed and, on September 1, 2013, he submitted <br />comments to the City's hearing official opposing the matter. Rec p 1308. <br />Subsequently, Mr. Trautman waited to hear what happened on the proposal. <br />While Mr. Trautman waited, on November 12, 2013, the City's hearing official <br />approved the proposal - and did not inform Mr. Trautman of his decision. Rec <br />pp 344 - 6. The approval was appealed to the City Planning Commission but, <br />again, no information was provided to Mr. Trautman. On December 5, 2013, <br />the Eugene Planning Commission held a hearing on the proposal - and again <br />did not notify Mr. Trautman. Rec pp 315 - 17. On December 16, 2013, the <br />Eugene Planning Commission affirmed the Hearings Official, but neglected to <br />inform Mr. Trautman of that decision. Rec pp 3 - 5. <br />Those failures were significant, because they prevented Mr. Trautman <br />from participating in the proceedings before the City. Mr. Trautman was faced <br />with a new development as a neighbor, and the City's actions prevented him <br />from having any input into the review during the local appeal of the Hearings <br />Official's decision approving the Applicant's proposal. This failure to provide <br />provided. As it happens, that was his residence at the time the application was <br />filed and will be his residence in the future. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.