Oakleigh Meadow PUD appeal

Neighbors fight the incompatible condominium project proposed by Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC (OMC)

The families on Oakleigh and McLure Lanes have joined together to oppose an incompatible and out-of-scale Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would comprise 29 dwelling units on a riverside meadow at the end of an unmaintained dead-end road.

Update: On May 25, 2016, Nena Lovinger and Paul Conte submitted an appeal brief to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Click to read the Court of Appeals Brief.

Update: On April 14, 2016, LUBA appeal issued an order affirming the City’s approval of the PUD. Opponents are considering an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which overturned LUBA’s decision in the first LUBA appeal.Appeal filed of “Final PUD” approval.
Click to read the Appeal Statement.

Click to read the LUBA decision. (67 MB document)

Update: On February 11 & 12, opponents filed three briefs in the LUBA appeal, detailing numerous procedural and substantive errors made by the Planning Commission that would endanger both the PUD residents and current families that live on Oakleigh Lane.

Click to read Simon Trautman’s LUBA appeal brief.
Click to read Paul Conte’s LUBA appeal brief.
Click to read Nena Lovinger’s LUBA appeal brief.

Click to read City’s response to Nena Lovinger’s appeal brief.

Update: The Eugene Planning Commission re-approved the OMC PUD. Two LUBA appeals have been filed by opponents.

Recap of the remand proceedings in front of the Eugene Planning Commission

New evidence revealed that for a 250-foot segment, Oakleigh Lane has only about 14 foot width of pavement in the public right-of-way, far less than the legal minimum of 20 feet and completely unsafe for access by fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.

The Planning Commission relied upon a blatant misrepresentation of the City’s adopted street standards in its findings. In their findings, the Planning Commission ignored overwhelming evidence in the Eugene Code, Eugene’s adopted street standards, Eugene Fire Code, Oregon Fire Code, International Fire Code, Oregon Department Of Transportation (ODOT) guidelines  and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

The Planning Division staff also failed to inform the Planning Commission of a finding adopted by the Eugene City Council that clarified in no uncertain terms that the minimum paving width for Eugene streets is 20 feet.

Click here to read Simon Trautman testimony submitted July 27, 2015.

Click here to read Simon Trautman testimony submitted August 31, 2015.

Click here to read Simon Trautman testimony submitted September 4, 2015.

Update: The Oregon Court of Appeals remanded the city’s initial approval of OMC’s PUD. Despite learning that there’s a 250-foot long stretch of Oakleigh Lane that has only 14 to 15 feet of paving in the public right-of-way — thus making it even more dangerous for emergency vehicles, as well as residents, the Eugene Planning Commission relied on a patently false finding that the city’s adopted street standards allow 14-foot wide pavement.

Click here to read the letter sent to Mayor Piercy by residents.

The simple story is that Eugene Code requires that the streets serving a new PUD be “safe and adequate.” The proposed PUD would nearly double the traffic, and the Eugene Public Works Department (PWD) assessment determined that new and current residents, pedestrians and bicyclists would be at risk unless Oakleigh Lane were widened and improved to the City’s adopted street standards.

Nonetheless, the City approved the PUD.

Click here to read the LUBA appeal brief that explains the problems.

Click here to read the Court of Appeals brief that explains how LUBA failed to even address the critical issues.

Click here to read The Register-Guard “Guest Viewpoint” that describes how Mayor Kitty Piercy ignored the City’s admitted violations of statutory process that prevented citizens from their right to participate in the local appeal.

The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on November 24, 2014.

 

One response

  1. Tamia Treesong | Reply

    Where do things stand now April 2016? What does this do to property values and proposed taxes related to newly required “modifications” to bring these streets up to the newly imposed requirements? Why are so many people on these streets selling their homes? If I move to this area will I be able to afford to stay? or is a huge loss in actual property size or increased expenses for a first time homeowner?

Leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: