2017 Planning Commission Final Order on Remand (PDT 13-1 Re-Affirmed)

WPlanning Commission 2017 FINAL ORDER OF THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION ON REMAND FROM THE OREGON LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS: OAKLEIGH MEADOWS CO-HOUSING PUD (PDT 13-1) 1. INTRODUCTION This final order concerns an appeal of a decision by the Eugene Hearings Official (HO) to approve a tentative planned unit development (PUD). The Eugene Hearings Official (HO) held the initial public hearing on this request on October 2, 2013. Following the hearing and open record period for additional testimony, he approved the applicant's tentative PUD with 15 conditions of approval on November 12, 2013. The applicant's concurrent request for a Willamette Greenway Permit was also approved but is not challenged by the opponents as part of this appeal. On November 22, 2013, an appeal was filed by the River Road Community Organization. The co- appellant is Bryn Thoms, the owner of adjacent lands to the north. The appeal statement identified ten primary assignments of error in the Hearings Official's findings and decision with respect to applicable Eugene Code (EC) approval criteria at EC 9.8320. On November 25, 2013, the City mailed written notice of the appeal and the Planning Commission (PC) held the public hearing on the appeal on December 5, 2013. At the public hearing, Will Dixon and attorney Zack Mittge provided oral testimony on behalf of the applicant. Lynn Dixon, Otto Poticha, Joan Connolly, and Antonia Lewis spoke in favor of the application. In opposition to the application, Bryn Thorns and Paul Conte provided oral testimony on behalf of the appellant. Anne Love, Richard Dambrov, and Paul Heintz also spoke in opposition to the application. The applicant's legal counsel, Zack Mittge; followed with rebuttal testimony. Written testimony was also provided by the parties and other individuals. The PC closed the public hearing and the record on December 5, 2013. The PC deliberated on the appeal issues at its meetings on December 9` and 161h, and reached its final decision on December 16, 2013. The PC affirmed the HO's decision to approve the subject applications, with additional findings and modifications to approval conditions in some instances. In particular, the PC removed a condition imposed by the HO that would have required landscape screening along the eastern boundary of the subject property. Appellants and other interested neighbors appealed the PC's 2013 approval to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and then to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals remanded the matter back to the City because a neighbor who submitted written testimony to the HO (Simon Trautman) did not receive notice of the HO decision or notice of the PC appeal hearing. The Court required the City to allow Simon Trautman to testify before the PC. Consistent with the Court of Appeals' ruling, the City mailed notice for a second hearing in 2015. The 2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 1