My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
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.
/
334
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).
View images
View plain text
ThisdifferssignificantlyfromthedescriptionofcorridorsasenvisionedintheEcological <br />DescriptionsectionofthePreliminaryReportoftheSouthHillsStudy(p.76of100):"The <br />corridorsconnectingtheseareaswouldbeofsufficientwidthtooffervisualcoverfromanimals <br />movingthroughor,becauseoflocalconditions,offerprotectionbydensityofvegetationor <br />configurationoflandforms."CCRsarenotprovidedaspartofthisproposal. <br />TheapplicationdoesmeetEC9.9630(1)(a)andshouldbedenied. <br />(3)DevelopmentStandards-SpecificRecommendations <br />(b)Thatplannedunitdevelopmentproceduresshallbeutilizedforthefollowing <br />purposes <br />1.Toencourageclusteringofdevelopmentinareascharacterizedby: <br />a.Shallowestslopes <br />b.Lowestelevations <br />c.Leastamountofvegetation <br />d.Leastamountofvisualimpact <br />2.Toencouragepreservationasopenspacethoseareascharacterizedby: <br />a.Intermediateandsteepslopes <br />b.Higherelevations <br />c.Significantamountsofvegetation <br />d.Significantvisualimpact <br />ThePUDapplicationstatementmisinterpretsandmisconstruestheintentoftheSouthHills <br />StudyPoliciesandstates(p.28of67oftheWrittenStatement): <br />"Tobeginthisdiscussion,wewillpointoutthatthesearerecommendationsonly...While <br />well-intended,theSouthHillsStudypresumesthathillsaresteepestatthetopand <br />shalloweratthebottom." <br />TheabovestatementisincorrectsincetheSouthHillsStudyspecificallydiscussesshallow <br />slopedareasabove901'asoccurringclosetotheridgelineorurbanserviceboundary,and <br />outlinesthereasonsintensivedevelopmentshouldnotoccurthere. <br />TheproposedCHPUDfailstoprotecttheridgelineandthehighestpointsoftheproposedsite <br />\[seealso EC9.8320(4)p.47\].TheApplicantdoesnotmeettheessentialcriteriaofthe <br />DevelopmentStandardsoutlinedbytheadoptedportionoftheSouthHillsStudy: <br />TheApplicationfailstoproposedevelopmentinareaswiththe“leastamountofvisual <br />impact,”and“theleastamountofvegetation.”Instead,theyarebuildingatthe“highest <br />mostvisibleelevationandareproposingtoremovemostofthelargertrees.Thelogging <br />activitywillfurtherdestroyvegetation. <br />TheApplicationfailstoconservetreesatthehighestelevations—afailurethatwillhave <br />thegreatestnegativevisualimpactonthelargestnumberofpeoplewholiveinthecityof <br />EugeneandtotheeastinLaurelHillValley(seeCriterion4andabove). <br />28 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.