Eugene Planning Commission <br />Hearings Official Errors - PDT 13-1 Testimony from Bryn Thoms <br />6~ Assignment of Error <br />Further, the proposal pushes building, garages, barns and other structures to the edge of the <br />property, requiring modifications to the setbacks on three of its sides. The proposal uses a <br />concrete wall as its main face to the neighborhood to the west. the proposal pushes its . <br />buildings into the setbacks to the north and to the south. The Hearings Official relies on size <br />of buildings, density calculations, height limits and other factors; however, those limitations <br />are already imposed by code, so theyprovide no -basis to find this criterion is met, <br />Moreover, the Hearings Official calculation ofsize is erroneous and does not understand the <br />context of the neighborhood, which includes smaller homes. This proposal is not <br />harmonious and reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. It will stick out like a sore <br />thumb. <br />The following narrative gets at the erroneous calculation of building mass and bulk. The <br />applicant uses the square footage of the individual units to compare to the surrounding <br />neighborhood, which appears to show that the buildings of the proposed PUD are compatible <br />with the surrounding neighborhood, because they are similar in size to the single family detached <br />homes on Oakleigb and McClure Lanes. When lookug at building bulk and mass the total <br />cumulative square footage of the whole townhouse should be used for the comparison. When <br />that is done, you see that the smallest building in the proposed PUD is about 4000 square feet, <br />which larger than any of the homes on Oak]iegb and McClure by 1000 to 2000 square feet. Most <br />of the townhouses are actually in the 6000 square foot range. That is not compatible nor <br />harmonious with the existing neigbborhood. The Hearings Official ignores the opposition's <br />presentation on this matter and simply relies on the applicant's findings. In addition the City <br />allowed this inaccurate comparison to be "approved" in their -staff report. Ibis is a major flaw by <br />both the City and the Hearings Official. <br />7t' Assi;iznunent of Error <br />The Hearings Official erred in finding that the proposed P STD would comply with EC <br />9.8320(3) requiring 'adequate screening" from surroundingproperties. Ae Hearings <br />Official appears to have only considered height, but the criterion requires consideration of. <br />"building location [and] bulk" as well. In addition, the Hearings Official found the <br />screening to the'north adequate based, in part, on cedar trees that are on adjacentproperty. <br />Ais is inadequate as that "screening" can be removed by the adjoiningproperty owner. <br />The screening on the northern boundary was also found adequate based on landscaping and <br />planters, but those will. be located in the dedicated right-of-way. Moreover, the screening <br />requirement is not met when the applicantpushes its impacts to the very edge of the property, <br />requiring multiple adjustments to setback requirements for the wall to the west and the <br />buildings on the other sides, while keeping open space in the center. 7liis arrangement does <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />305 <br />