My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (02)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (02)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:10:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
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.
/
300
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
O.MC likes-to be selective in how-theyword things. While the size of the individual OMC <br />units might be similar in square footage to the surrounding homes, what they don't like to <br />talk about is how those are combined into buildings thatcontain up to FIVE of those units, <br />making the buildings 5 times the size of anything nearby. Bryn Thoms presented'a <br />depiction of how big the buildings are in comparison to the surrounding homes. The mass <br />of these buildings will be bigger and taller than any other homes in the surrounding <br />neighborhoods. The hearings official went purely on-building height and units per acre in <br />making his decision on this topic. If you are goingto throw out all of the R1 standards for <br />this development then you need to look at more than just the height of a building-and the <br />square footage of the individual units to- decide if it is compatible with the surrounding <br />neighborhood. This is not compatible or harmonious (PUD section 13), and the HO erred in <br />declaring that it is. <br />4. The hearings official- erred on what needs to be removed for net density. It appears in his <br />report that he and the City can't agree on what should and should not. be considered <br />subtracted. If the hearings official and the City of Eugene can't even figure out what is to be <br />subtracted, then that obviously needs to be cleared up before this development can be <br />approved to move forward. From the calculations presented by Bryn Thoms after research <br />of the City code requirements, we find that OMC has gone over the allowed number of units <br />for the R1 zone. If all parties cannot agree on what should be subtracted, then this should <br />be denied until they can! <br />Based on the facts stated above, and all of the evidence presented by the opposition to the <br />Oakleigh Meadow Condominium development, I urge you to denythis-Planned Unit <br />Development-due to the many errors by the- Hearing's Official. <br />Sincerely, <br />Sandy Thoms <br />Homeowner of 135 Oakleigh Lane and Tax Lot 200 <br />301 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.