AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY <br />July 28, 2015 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division <br />Subject: Remand Hearing: Oakleigh Cohousing PUD (City File PDT 13-1) <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />To hold a public hearing on remand from a decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). <br />The hearing is being held to provide Simon Trautman an opportunity to participate in the <br />appeal of the Eugene Hearings Official's approval of a tentative planned unit development <br />(PUD), Oakleigh Cohousing PUD (PDT 13-1). <br />Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate on how to proceed with <br />LUBA's remand on the landscape screening issue. <br />BACKGROUND INFORMATION <br />Proposal <br />The proposal for Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD includes the development of 29 dwelling <br />units, including a common house with shared kitchen facilities. The subject property is a vacant <br />2.3 acre site, located at the end of Oakleigh Lane, east of River Road near the Willamette River. <br />The east boundary of the subject property abuts undeveloped City parkland, which abuts the <br />Willamette River further to the east. <br />Prior Decisions <br />On November 12, 2013, the Eugene Hearings Official issued a decision on the applicant's <br />proposal for approval of a PUD at the end of Oakleigh Lane. The Hearings Official approved the <br />request, but imposed a condition that required screening along the eastern property line to <br />buffer the proposed development from an adjoining public park. Opponents appealed the <br />decision to the Eugene Planning Commission, and raised numerous issues, including several <br />related to transportation and required improvements to Oakleigh Lane. The Planning <br />Commission affirmed the approval but removed the requirement for landscape screening along <br />the eastern property line. <br />Opponents then appealed the Planning Commission's approval to the Land Use Board of <br />Appeals (LUBA). At that time, it was discovered that several individuals who had submitted <br />testimony to the Hearings Official had not received notice of the Hearings Official's decision or <br />of the Planning Commission appeal hearing. One of those individuals, Simon Trautman, <br />attempted to participate in the LUBA appeal and argued that he should have been allowed to <br />testify before the planning commission. LUBA declined to allow him to participate as a party in <br />PC Agenda - Page 1 <br />