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
Inaddition,theproposedCHPUDdoesnotprovidesufficientdetailtodescribehowthefinal <br />developmentasawholewillappearoncethehomesareconstructed.TheApplicationstates(p. <br />35of67): <br />“TheCapitalHillCCRswillprovideguidelinesforthebulk,height,andscaleofthe <br />buildings.Inaddition,therewillbeadesignreviewteamthatwillreviewandapprove <br />proposedplansensuringthattheintentoftheCCR’sismet.” <br />WrittenHOABylaws,CCRs,ordeedrestrictionscould,intheory,mitigatesomeofthevisual <br />impactstotheRibbonTrailandtotherestoftheCityandalsohelpmitigatesomeofthe <br />biologicalimpacts.However,sincetheapplicationdoesnotincludewrittenHOABylaws, <br />CCRs,ordeedrestrictions,theproposedPUDislackinginsufficientdetailtobeproperly <br />evaluatedforcompliancetothevariousapplicablecodes. <br />EveniftheplanweretoofferCCRsthatdictatedtheappearanceandcharacterofthehouses,the <br />height,density,andplacementofthehousesitesamplifythevisualimpactoftheproposed <br />CHPUDtotheusersoftheRibbonTrail,oneofthemostpopularandaccessablehikingtrailsin <br />Eugene.TheApplicationfalselyclaimsthat80-acreHendricksParkwillservetovisuallyscreen <br />theproposedCHPUDbutignoresthefactthattheparkabutsthenorthernboundaryofthe <br />proposedCHPUD,withproposedlotsadjacenttotheparkboundary--Thereisnobufferzone <br />whatsoever.Thefencingalongtheboundaryoftheparkmayallowdeertopass,butallother <br />wildlifeseeninthearea,includingminks,coyotes,foxes,etc.,willbeblockedbythesix-foot <br />fence. <br />Insummary,theApplicationfailstoshowthebulk,scale,andheightofwhatisbeingproposed <br />andlackssufficientdetailsandguaranteeswillblendwiththenaturalcharacteristicsofthearea <br />andtheexistingneighborhood.Therequirementthat developmentsbereviewedintermsof <br />scale,bulkandheight isnotmet.AmerestatementbytheApplicantthatthey"willprovide <br />guidelines"isinadequatetosatisfythecriterion. <br />TheapplicationdoesnotsatisfyEC9.9630(3)(e)andshouldbedenied. <br />(g)Thatplannedunitdevelopmentreviewshallbebaseduponrecognitionofboth <br />publicandprivateinterest.Inareasofsignificantconflict(e.g.,locating <br />developmentinahighlyvisibleareaasopposedtoalessvisibleareaorinanareaof <br />significantvegetationasopposedtoarelativelyopenarea)whichcouldberesolved <br />throughuseofanalternativedevelopmentplan,primacyshallbegiventothepublic <br />interestinanydeterminations. <br />TheApplicationclaims(p.32of67): <br />"Inthisinstancethepublicinterestisservedby <br />Minimizingimpactstothesite\[sic\]existingtreesandvegetation; <br />Minimizingthedisturbanceofsomeofthesteepestslopes; <br />Minimizingtheimpacttothesitebyproposingdensitythatiswellunderthe5units <br />peracreallowed; <br />30 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.