- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
- Date Filed: 04-14-2016
- Case #: 2016-076
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
- Full Text Opinion
In two consolidated appeals, petitioners Simon Trautman and Paul Conte, and intervenor-petitioner Nena Lovinger (petitioners), appealed a planning commission decision approving a tentative planned unit development (PUD) application. Intervenor-respondent Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing, LLC (Meadows), the owner of the subject property and applicant for the proposed PUD, sought approval for a 29-unit residential development comprising seven buildings on 2.3 acres of land zoned low density residential (R-1). The subject property is adjacent to a city park, single family dwellings, and vacant land also zoned residential. In proceedings on remand: petitioner Trautman provided written arguments and evidence that a street adjacent to the planned PUD, Oakleigh Lane, is unsafe due to its lack of a 19-foot unobstructed pavement width as a result of potential parked vehicles; Meadows also submitted arguments and evidence regarding the pavement width; and petitioner Conte was denied his request that he be allowed to submit a response to allegedly new evidence submitted by Meadows. Subsequently, the planning commission approved Meadows’ application with conditions, and petitioners appealed to LUBA.
Intervenor-petitioner Lovinger assigned as error the city’s alleged commission of procedural error on remand that prejudiced her substantial rights, in part, by failing to provide her with individual written notice of limitations regarding the proceedings on remand. LUBA denied Lovinger’s argument, determining that no statutes she cited required that the city provide her with individual written notice, and dismissed her “due process concerns” argument as well. LUBA denied Conte’s motion to take evidence not in the record, and similarly denied his fifth and sixth assignments of procedural error regarding the city’s denial of that same evidence but acceptance of Meadows’ submission into the record of an allegedly revised PUD plan. Finally, LUBA denied petitioners’ assignments of error regarding safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with Eugene Code 9.8320(5). AFFIRMED.