Friends of Eugene <br />Testimony on Amazon Corner ARA-16-0017 & TIA-16-0007 <br />2016.1109 <br />To: Planning Department, City of Eugene <br />Erik Berg-Johnasen, Associate Planner <br />Erik. Berg@ci.eugene.or.us <br />Dear Eugene Planning Director, et al., <br />Thank you for receiving this testimony regarding the current Amazon Corner ARA <br />and TIA applications. <br />With a degree in environmental planning, a graduate degree in architecture, and more <br />than 15 years experience in Oregon land use planning, I am contributing to the review of <br />these land use applications as president of the public interest land use watchdog group <br />Friends of Eugene, and as a pro-bono technical consultant for concerned residents of <br />Lane County. I am also contributing as an individual interested party as a member of <br />Southeast Neighbors, and as Eugene property owner. <br />For our specific concerns regard the TIA, please see comments prepared by <br />consultant Eben Fodor and submitted separately and on our behalf. All the <br />concerns in Mr. Fodor's report are included here by reference. <br />Our perspective on the Adjustment Review requests starts with the fact that the <br />proposed five-story tall, 223-foot-long urban street wall is entirely out of character <br />with any existing structures for many blocks in any direction. <br />When such a wrenching, high-impact modification to the neighborhood and parks <br />cape is proposed, discretionary adjustments that would serve to increase the <br />overall impact of the proposed development should be looked on especially <br />critically. <br />#2-Increase the allowable length of a multi-family building <br />We oppose the request to increase the allowable length of a multi-family building <br />in this case. As noted above, the proposed building is terrifically overscaled <br />compared to the current surroundings, most of which are single story, with <br />nothing over two stories anywhere in sight. <br />The applicant fails to provide any public entrances through the over-sized <br />building wall, with no good reason provided. <br />Applicant's justifications 1 & 2 are essentially the same, and superficial relative to <br />the gross issue of scale. <br />Justification 3 is both irrelevant to the building massing issue, and non-sensical. <br />Testimony on Amazon Corner <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />