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
3)HowwilltheCC&Rsbeabletoimpactthe“character”oftheproposedproject,as <br />indicatedonPage30of67ofthe8/22/17Application? <br />4)Whatisthecompositionofthedesignreviewteam? <br />5)Howwillthedesignreviewteamfunction,bothbeforetheHOAisturnedoverto <br />homeownersandafter? <br />6)Towhatextent,ifany,willminorchangesafterconstructionbegins(change <br />orders)beunderthepurviewofthedesignreviewteam? <br />7)Howwillthedesignreviewteamenforceits“findings”? <br />8)Whatrolewillthedesignreviewteamplayaftertheprojectachievesbuild-out? <br />TheResponseCommitteestronglysupportsahaltintheapprovalprocessuntilthe <br />ApplicantandhisConsultantaddressthesetypesofissuestothesatisfactionofthe <br />community. <br />#### <br />The8/22/17Applicationstatesonpage35of67: <br />“Homesproposedforthisrea\[sic\]willbenodifferentthananyothersinglefamily <br />attachedordetachedhomeallowedinthecityofEugene.Therearenoclearand <br />objectivestandardsthatregulatebulkorscaleofabuildingfoundanywhereintheland <br />usecodeorthebuildingcode. <br />And:“Nobuildingelevationshavebeenshownasthisisanexerciseinguessingwithno <br />criterionuponwhichtoobjectivelyevaluatethesubmittedimages.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteenotesthatthetwounderlinedsentencesaboveareexactly“theissue.”Since <br />neitherthelandusecodenorthebuildingcodeappearstocontainanyobjective,tangible <br />standardsforpossiblebuildingbulkandscale,evenforanareaassensitiveasthatofthe <br />proposedPUD,bywhatmeanscanthesurroundingneighborhoodevaluateanynew <br />development? <br />TheAnswer:Three-dimensionalCADdesignsandsimulation.Theyprovideatoolto <br />“experience”newstructuresto-scaleandfromallsides,elevationsanddistances. <br />TheCommitteeisgravelyconcernedthataprojectofthismagnitude,proposedtobebuiltin <br />anhistoricneighborhoodandadjacenttothebelovedandirreplaceableenvironmentalassets <br />ofHendricksParkandtheRibbonTrail,hasnotbeenrequiredtoprovidethismaterialin <br />“anyway,shapeorform.”Nor(aspreviouslymentioned)hastheApplicationbeenrequired <br />toindicate(viaevendraftCC&Rs)whatpossiblelimitationsorregulationsareproposedto <br />diminishthepotentialdevastatingvisualimpactofthisproject. <br />WeareawarethattheApplicant’sConsultanthastheimmediateandaccessibleabilityto <br />producesuchrenderingsforthecommunity.(Thesecapabilitieswereutilizedbythe <br />Applicant’sConsultantintheearlyphasesofeducatingtheneighborhoodaboutCapitalHill <br />PUD.) <br />42 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.