My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-19-18 to 3-21-18)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-19-18 to 3-21-18)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:12:50 AM
Creation date
3/22/2018 1:53:33 PM
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 after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/21/2018
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.
/
218
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
Throughout their report, the Eugene Planning Staff suggests that the Applicant has <br />attempted to come as close as possible to meet the public interest represented in the <br />relevant codes while seeking their right to develop in R-1 zoning. In fact, the Applicant <br />has no clear right to develop R-1 zoning because they are subject to refinement plans <br /> EC 9.8320 <br />(South Hills Studies and Laurel Hill--), which require the Applicant to <br />develop a Planned Unit Development. We want to pause for a moment and look at <br />EC9.4300 Purpose of /PD Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone, <br />which states that <br />Development overlay zone is intended to achieve all of the following: <br />(1) Provide flexibility in architectural design, placement and clustering of <br />buildings, use of open space and outdoor living areas, and provision of facilities <br />for the circulation of automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, and mass transit, <br />parking, storage, and other considerations related to site design. <br />(2) Promote an attractive, safe, efficient, and stable environment that <br />incorporates a compatible variety and mix of uses and dwelling types. <br />(3) Provide for economy of shared services and facilities. <br />(4) Encourage the construction of a variety of housing types at price ranges <br />necessary to meet the needs of all income groups in the city. <br />(5) Enhance the opportunity to achieve higher densities. <br />(6) Preserve natural resource areas. <br /> <br />As I argue below (and in another post-hearing commentary and with others in the Joint <br />Response Committee document), the Applicant has proposed a crude land division for <br />very expensive homes, all at the cost of community safety, the environmental and <br />resource value of the contiguous park system, and the natural feature of the Åevergreen <br />forest edgeÆ of the ridgeline identified in the South Hills Study as a public asset of the <br />entire community. The Applicant has failed to fulfill the purpose of the planned unit <br />development required for a refinement zone. <br />The enactment of Oregon SB100 in the Eugene Code system requires developers wishing <br />to build in refinement zones such as the South Hills and Laurel Hill to submit planned <br />unit proposals because the refinement zones posses unique natural features (such as <br />ridgelinesÄthe Åevergreen forest edgeÆ described in the South Hills Study) that are <br />protected as public assets. The key point here is that the planned unit develop path allows <br />(quote from ) Å <br />a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site and the mix of <br />land uses, potential environmental impacts¼.Æ In other words, regardless of the <br />challenges of the site, the Applicant has a wide range of design choices at their disposal <br />in order to balance the desire to build homes with the needs of the community and the <br />natural environment as defined in the codes. When those needs are in conflict, as defined <br />9.9630 (3)(g), <br />in PlanningStaff is supposed to decide in favor of the public: In areas of <br />significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a <br />less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open <br />area) which could be resolved through use of an alternative development plan, primacy <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.