SeealsoinSection EC9.8320(6)and(10)(d)ofthisResponsedocumentadditionaldiscussion <br />oflandslidepotential. <br />NotethatamoreacceptablesolutionwouldbefortheApplicanttodedicateLots18and19tothe <br />Citysothatthemoreseverelandslideareaistrulyblockedfromdevelopment.Doingsowould <br />createalargernaturalbufferonthesouthernendoftheproposedprojectandwouldalsoprovide <br />greateraccessforthepublicandthepotentialPUDresidentstotherecreationalareasofthe <br />RibbonTrailandHendricksPark.AdedicationtoHendricksParkofsomelotsatthenorthern <br />endoftheproposedPUDwoulddothesame.Bothofthesededicationswouldimprovesafety <br />withintheprojectanddecreasetheneedforlotfrontagevariances. <br />The8/22/17ApplicationstatesthefollowingonPage59of67: <br />“WeareaskingforflexibilityforlotfrontageforLots5,6,8,9,16,17,18,19and33,asthey <br />donotmeettheminimumfrontagerequirements.Similarlytoourrequestforflexibilityfor <br />lotcoverageabove,flexibilityisprovidedthroughboththePUDprocessandtheEugene <br />Codetopromotedesignthatmeetscommunityvalues.Thelotfrontagerequirementsare <br />basedonatraditionallot-by-lotapproachtodevelopment,whichisnotaone-size-fits-all <br />approachtodevelopment.R-1lotsarerequiredtohave50feetoffrontage,whileother <br />residentialzones(excludingR-1.5)arepermitted35feet.Moreover,rowhouselotsareonly <br />requiredtohave15feetoffrontage.ThePUDprocesspermitstheapplicanttorequest <br />flexibilityregardinglandusecriteriatodesignadevelopmentthatisunique,livable,and <br />sustainable.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteequestionstheApplication’sstatementaboveregardingcommunityvalues.How <br />doshorterlotfrontagelengthspromotedesignthatmeetsso-called“communityvalues”?This <br />statementisnonsenseandthetypeof“landplanningspeak”thatseekstocamouflagedesign <br />deficiencies,notpromotethem.Ofcourselotfrontagerequirementsarebasedonthetypeof <br />structureproposedi.e.,rowhousesshouldhaveashorterrequiredfrontagethansinglefamily <br />detachedhomes.Amore“livable”designwouldbeonewhereresidentscouldactuallyseethe <br />streetandtheirneighborsandtheirchildrenatplay,seevehiclesandpedestriansapproaching <br />theirfrontdoor(safetyfactor)andbeapartofcommunityactivities. <br />“Throughnotrequiringeverylottohavefrontage,thePUDisabletoprovideathoughtful <br />designthatprovidesaccesstopublicandprivatestreets,whilepreservingtreesand <br />vegetationthroughreducingtheuseofextraneousgradingandcutandfill.”(Emphasis <br />added.) <br />TheCommitteehaspreviouslydiscussedthatthecurrentsiteplanfortheproposedprojectis <br />“contrived”becauseofthegeologicalchallengeson-site.Together,theApplication’sdesireto <br />retainseverallargelots,thelandslidedangerinthesouthernportionofthesite,andthesteep, <br />unbuildableportionalongtheeasternedgeofthesitecombinetoforcethelocationofbuildings <br />alongCupolaDrive.Amore“thoughtful”designwouldreducethenumberoflotssothatfewer <br />lotswouldfrontontoCupolaandwouldalso,perhaps,dedicateLots18and19(andevenLots5, <br />6and8)totheCityforexpansionofHendricksParkandRibbonTrailaccess. <br />153 <br /> <br />