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
#### <br />3)PotentialBuildingHeight: <br />WhendeterminingthepotentialimpactofnewresidencesontheviewfromtheRibbonTrail, <br />inadditiontotheaboveanalysisregardingtheirproximitytothetrail,onemustalsoreview <br />thepossibleheightofnewresidences. <br />The8/22/17Application,onPage35(upper)ofPage67,statesthefollowing: <br />“Theproposedbuildingswilladheretothelimitsofthelandusecodeasitregulatesthe <br />heightofsinglefamilyhomes.Noflexibilityinthestandardsisrequested.” <br />Andonthesamepageafewlinesdown: <br />“Thelimittobuildingsizeisfoundintheheightrestrictionsplacedonthezoneandthelot <br />coveragestandards.” <br />Thesubjectofbuildingheightisaddressedwithinthecodeat EC9.0500Definitions <br />“BuildingHeight”atPage9.0-9.Thereisalsoaschematic BuildingHeightCalculation <br />sheetatFigure9.0500(shownbelow)andthetableat EC9.2750ResidentialDevelopment <br />ZoneStandards.Additionally,EC9.6720HeightExceptionsforRoofStructures… <br />providesforanadditional7feetinheightforsomearchitecturalfeaturesandroofstructures <br />providedtheroofslopeis6:12orgreater. <br />TheCommitteehasthoroughlyreviewedtheCity’sheightrestrictionsforbuildingsinanR-1 <br />neighborhood,suchasthesubject.TheCommitteeemailedspecificquestionstotheCity <br />regardinghowtocalculatethepotentialheightofbuildingsonsteepR-1lots.Seequote <br />belowfromaDecember14,2017emailfromMikeMcKerrow,LandUseAnalystwiththe <br />CityofEugene.AlsoseecompleteemailasanAttachmentYtothisResponseDocument. <br />“Awaytosummarizethedefinitionwhichattemptstoprovidesomereliefforsteeplots <br />is,youalwaysmeasurebuildingheightfromthelowestpointoftheperimeterofthe <br />buildingatadistance5’fromthewall.Ifthedifferenceis10’orgreaterfromthatlowest <br />pointontheperimetertothehighestpointyouget40’insteadof30’.Ifahousedesign <br />showsonlya9’differencefromlowestpointtohighest,itismorechallengingforthe <br />designersinceyoustillmeasurefromthelowestpointbutonlyget30’. <br />Gladyouidentifiedtheextra7’allowedfor6in12roofpitchesorgreater.Council <br />viewedsteeperroofpitchesasbeingmoreaestheticandcreatelessbulkormassfora <br />house.Iwouldsaymosthouseshaveatleastthisstandardsomosthousesget37’or47’ <br />onasteepslopeforthemaximumheight. <br />(Emphasisadded.) <br />39 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.