t nip <br />On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, the Eugene Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal <br />on the following land use application which was approved by the Hearings Official: <br />File Name Oakleigh Cohousing PUD (PDT 13-1) <br />Location: Located at the east end of Oakleigh Lane. <br />Application: Tentative Planned Unit Development for a 29-unit cohousing development. <br />Applicant: Will Dixon, Oakleigh Meadow LLC <br />Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, (541) 682-5697 <br />All documents and evidence submitted on these applications will be available for free inspection at the <br />Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies <br />may also be obtained at cost. The Planning Division staff report to the Planning Commission on this appeal <br />will be provided at least 7 days in advance of the public hearing (available for inspection free of charge or <br />copies provided at a reasonable cost). <br />Background <br />On November 12, 2013, the Eugene City Hearings Official issued a decision on the applicant's proposal for <br />approval of a planned unit development (PUD). The Hearings Official approved the request, but imposed a <br />condition that required screening along the eastern property line to buffer the proposed development from <br />an adjoining public park. Opponents appealed the decision to the Eugene Planning Commission, which <br />affirmed the approval but removed the requirement for screening along the eastern property line. <br />Opponents then appealed the Planning Commission's approval to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). An <br />individual who was not one of the appellants, Simon Trautman, attempted to participate in the LUBA appeal. <br />Although Mr. Trautman had testified before the Hearings Official, he was not provided notice of the <br />Hearings Official's decision or of the Planning Commission appeal hearing. Mr. Trautman argued before <br />LUBA that he was prejudiced by the failure to notify him and that he should have been allowed to testify <br />before the Planning Commission. LUBA declined to allow him to participate as a party in the LUBA appeal. <br />On the substance of the appeal, LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission's decision on all issues but one- <br />LUBA determined that the Planning Commission's decision removing any requirement for landscape <br />buffering on the east side of the property failed to satisfy an applicable approval criterion. <br />On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court determined that LUBA should have allowed Mr. Trautman to <br />participate as a party before LUBA. LUBA then remanded the matter to the City to provide Mr. Trautman <br />the notice that it should have provided in the first instance. The City has since provided that required notice <br />to Mr. Trautman. <br />Limited Participants <br />You are receiving this notice because you were involved in the hearing process when the matter first was <br />presented to the hearings official and planning commission in 2013 and 2014. However, the purpose of this <br />hearing is to remedy the procedural error that occurred in 2013 and to allow Simon Trautman to testify <br />w <br />