My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Materials Volume 2 of 3
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA Materials Volume 2 of 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:35 PM
Creation date
7/21/2015 11:13:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
1/20/2014
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
574
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
proposed development is not reasonable, and will not support this existing proposal. The neighbors are <br />proud and supportive of their existing neighborhood, and I assume will establish a refinement process that <br />will come back to the city planning department as a set of standards that are required for any future <br />development in their neighborhood, including such things as density, spacing, size, types of dwellings, <br />single-family v. multi-family dwellings, etc. Having this kind of meeting series allows the refinement <br />process to evolve comfortably, rationally, with mutual support and respect, on-the-spot, and then becomes <br />set as a standard upon which the decision can easily be made. <br />The architect and Dixon project manager team are clearly skilled, experienced in co-housing, and have <br />done some excellent drawings and studies. I am assuming this group would be willing to negotiate. <br />The key issue that divides these two shores seems to center around proposed density (numbers of <br />dwellings), and scale (height, width, size, location, layout, and spacing between structures). This is the <br />work at hand, and the agenda for these charettes. It is an active, evolving decision-making process not <br />behind closed doors but in front of everyone, meandering and adjusting just as the Willamette River <br />floodplain. <br />Make sure that all parties who participate are given full information, disclosure, and access ahead of time. <br />Equip and supply them with a full set of printed materials available for review at the planning department <br />and Eugene library, and same set posted on the internet. Those who are interested and want to participate <br />need to have full knowledge; otherwise they will be supportive or promote opinions based on incomplete <br />knowledge. <br />Please read my paper regarding suggested studies that should be done prior to making a decision. I <br />believe some or all of these studies were not performed, yet are crucial to lead to a reasonable, beautiful <br />design. I suggest the studies be completed prior to the start of the series of meetings, so that a full profile <br />of relative information is available to all decision-makers. <br />I believe that this process will circumvent a lengthy, counterproductive, sour-tasting battle that will not in <br />the end satisfy anyone, alienate old and new neighbors, and cost much in emotions and finances. I <br />envision people coming together and mutually solving variable conflicts in a common collaborative way, <br />resolving in short order. Could we give it a try? <br />Since ely, <br />1740je <br />Mark Conley <br />623 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.