Trautman v. City of Eugene

Summarized by:

  • 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

Under Eugene Code (EC) 9.8320(5), the city must find that a planned unit development (PUD) provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 (standards for streets, alleys, and other public ways), and where the city determines that because streets, alleys, and other public rights of way to be dedicated to the public by the applicant as a condition of development will meet minimum city standards prior to the city's acceptance of them, the standards of EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 will be deemed met and the PUD will be deemed to meet the requirements of EC 9.8320(5).

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.