Eugene Planning Commission <br />Hearings Official Errors - PDT 13-1 Testimony from Bryn Thoms <br />not adequately "screen" the property, nor does it show- that the development is "reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious" with adjacentproperties as required by EC 9.8320(13). <br />I believe this error was adequately covered Sandy Thoms' letter of testimony December 5th. <br />However, I will addthatnot only could the "selected" cedars trees on the neighboring property <br />(Tax Lot 200) be removed by the owners of TL 200, -the remaining north property line abutting <br />Oakleigh will not have adequate room between Building 1 and the new proposed property line <br />(south edge of the ROW), to provide adequate screening. The setback will be 0.5 feet <br />Essentially there would be no screening along the north property line if the cedar trees were <br />removed. This argument would similarly apply to the east side of the property, where there was <br />no screening on the proposed PUD property and the applicant references large cottonwood trees <br />along the bike path on public property as screening, in their application. The Hearings Official <br />conditioned the approval of the PUD with the requirement to add screening to the east side of the <br />property, because-the cottonwoods were not adequate. The same level of scrutiny should be <br />applied to the screening on the north. The Hearings Official erred in not providing the same <br />level of scrutiny to the north property line and by not conditioning the approval with the <br />requirement to provide,screening on the applicant's property along the north property line. <br />Subassignment of Error 8.A <br />The Hearing Official erred in his calculation of the net density area pursuant to EC 9.2751.. <br />For example, on page 35 of the decision, The Hearings Official excludes all easements from <br />that calculation. The net density provisions are intended to determine the amount of land <br />that is available to build; because buildings are not allowed within easements and areas <br />dedicated for water, sewer, street and similar public services, those areas must be excluded <br />from the calculation. <br />The EC regarding net density, specifically states the City may include public facilities and public <br />easements. The Hearings Official erred by removing public easements in the net density <br />calculations with no basis for doing so. The Hearings Official dismisses all the easements on the <br />property because code does not explicitly say easements (public) should be removed from the net <br />density calculation. However, the term "Public Facilities" is used in code and the Hearings <br />Official even states there the term is not defined EC 9.05. The Hearings Official then goes on to <br />say "public facility" is defined in the Metro Plan. I thought the Metro Plan was not directly <br />applicable to the PUD code. as stated by the Hearing Official early in the decision document <br />The Hearing's Official erred in not only conflicting himself with what plan or code should or <br />shouldn't apply, but he also dismisses the easements with no solid evidence to say that they are <br />not considered public facilities. The proposed EWEB water line which will carry public water <br />and that will need public services to repair (14 ft easement) should b e considered a public <br />facility. This also goes for the 6 foot diameter Sewer Main with 10 feet of OMC property pulled <br />-into easement along the east property line. <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />306 <br />