My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Remand
>
OnTrack
>
WG
>
2018
>
WG 18-3
>
LUBA Remand
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2019 4:02:32 PM
Creation date
12/26/2019 2:44:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
WG
File Year
18
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
Lombard Apartments
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
11/15/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
View images
View plain text
I <br />Opinion by Zamudio. <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners challenge a city planning commission decision approving with <br />4 conditions site review, adjustment review, and a Willamette River Greenway <br />5 permit (Greenway Permit) for a 94-unit apartment complex. <br />6 INTRODUCTION <br />7 This matter is on remand from the Court of Appeals. Hulme v. City of <br />8 Eugene, 299 Or App 76, 448 P3d 705 (2019). We restate the pertinent facts from <br />9 our underlying decision. Hulme v. City of Eugene, Or LUBA (LUBA No <br />10 2018-118, Mar 6, 2019). <br />11 The subject property is comprised of approximately 3.59 acres, located <br />12 between River Road and the Willamette River (the river), and is zoned Medium- <br />13 Density Residential (R-2). Intervenor-respondent Lombard Apartments, LLC <br />14 (Lombard) applied to the city for site review approval, adjustment review, and a <br />15 Greenway Permit to construct four two- and three-story apartment buildings <br />16 containing 94 multi-family dwelling units, a leasing office, maintenance <br />17 building, and other site improvements, including parking areas. <br />18 The city hearings official held a hearing on the application and approved <br />19 the development in a written decision. Opponents appealed the hearings official's <br />20 decision to the planning commission. The planning commission held a hearing <br />21 and approved the development in a written decision that adopted and modified <br />22 parts of the hearings official's decision. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.