LUBA Materials Volume 2 of 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Plan-view drawings - yah! They can look great. Some people don't know how to read them. Whatever the reason or.opinion, you get a whole different view from the ground on-site. I looked at the aerial photographs and plans and had in mind what the site would look like, then I actually experienced it, three- dimensionally, one-to-one scale, with my feet on the ground. The first hit was the height apparent. I was amazed at how tall the Cottonwoods were along the property border in the Riparian Forest. They are TALL. They make a beautiful screen. Their height is proportionate to the horizontal scale of the field, and they are echoed by the tall allee of California Incense Cedars planted by one of the neighbors. Another example, the next hit, was the obnoxious height and extent of the Himalayan Blackberry, an invasive specie. And then I saw a grand old mature Apple tree. Wow! In short, vertical. All neighbor's houses are more or less one story in height. They blend right in. The proposed vertical design, and the design in general, must be in scale with neighbors' houses, the built context, and the rhythin, forms, texture, and scale of the environment. ZONING APPROPRIATENESS Though planning may have this area zoned for a certain density, it may be too high for the area. This is apparent through what I call DENSITY CONTRAST. What I mean by this is the contrast between the existing density and the proposed and planned density. The existing density I would estimate at four (4) houses per acre. It looks just fine in reality. The proposed density is 28 "units," which I estimate to prorate to 14 houses per acre. This is more than three times the density of the existing context. It does not look good, even in plan view. It is too tight and dense. It creeps over valuable horizontal grassland and ruins the proportion, beauty, and impact the meadow has in its entirety. And, judging from the neighbors' instinctual unanimous rejection of the development, untrained eyes can recognize zoning density that is too tight, even in plan view. This is another one of those COMMON SENSE studies. You don't need code to know 218 units is too dense. If you were to prorate the existing 4 houses per acre to this site, assuming it to be two acres, then you would revise the density to be six to eight total residences for the development, and the common house would be included in that 6 to 8 number. Another dimension of zoning appropriateness is NEIGHBOR APPROVAL. While per code, R-1 maximum density of 14 residences per acre may be on the books as appropriate for the area, we should look also to neighbors. Their sense of the matter is of importance. What I note here is that most all the neighbors in the two neighborhoods are against the development, in large part to the high density in relation to existing. The issue at hand is this: code allows this density and most neighbors are against it. Which is more important: neighbors or code? Which has more weight? Since many neighbors are against it, I believe more weight should be given to the neighbors. After all, this is their neighborhood. Their pulse defines their space. How dare anyone come in and strong-arm a vividly different project- density under the shirt-tail of city code? The code is a guideline to serve residents, not a law to enforce upon unwilling serfs. The proposed density is so much greater than the existing surrounding environs and also the voice of most neighbors. This is compelling. Observing the state of this place brings even another dynamic that would be good study to modify existing city code. Density should be ranked in hierarchy to existing conditions. Some places higher density is more appropriate. While we want to reuse spaces and infill existing developed spaces to keep growing population within the urban growth boundary, at the same time new-development-density needs to be commensurate with the surrounding density and natural conditions of the environment. What we have here is a relatively undeveloped riparian forest (bike path only), spacious remnant farmland (assuming from the remnant fruit trees and exotic pasture grasses). Yes, it is an "undeveloped" lot, but it is part of the continuum of the quiet rural riparian landscape here experienced. And it is surrounded by relatively low density that has been established this way for decades. Here is not the place to juxtapose density that is 3.5 times greater than the surrounding environment, even though the books say R-1. A better place for this maximum 14 per acre density would be downtown Eugene, where you can stack up units in a multi-story building that blends with the cityscape. Same proposed density, two different environments. You have to "prorate" zoning density according the the current, established environment, not just because a zoning map defines the particular area to be a final number. This dynamic has not been 635