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
Applicant has established no buffer or setback between private lots and Hendricks Park <br />on the northen boundary of the Proposed PUD. There is no buffer at the edges of lots. <br />There is only one large evergreen preserved on the ridgeline. The rest of the ridgeline will <br />be, according to the foresterÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee <br />document, subject to a clearcut. As stated above, most of the large trees (75%), which are <br />of the highest habitat value, can be removed. For the reasons stated in the paragraph <br />9.8320 (4) (a) (2) (b)), <br />above, the Applicant fails to meet the standards in Goal 5 zone ( <br />which the Eugene Planning Staff contend applies to the proposed site. <br />As the Joint Response Committee has argued in their Joint Response Committee <br />document, there are significant safety issues associated with the Proposed Capital Hill <br />9.8320 (5). <br />PUD that should recommend against the plan satisfying As I have argued <br />above, the PUD process gives the Applicant significant design options to meet the <br />criteria. In this case, the Applicant could have proposed fewer units, which would simply <br />have reduced the traffic flow along the narrow roads. <br /> 9.8320 (6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health <br />Inthe code states that, <br />and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. <br /> <br />The geologistÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee document outlines in <br />extensive detail how the Proposed Capital Hill PUD poses a significant risk on the <br />eastern slope of the site to the Ribbon Trail and the citizens of Laurel Hill Valley who <br />live below the eastern side of the site. There is significant risk of landslide and erosion. <br />The geologist does a more than adequate job of presenting the evidence. The point to be <br />made here is that the Applicant has failed to mitigate or avoid these risks in their design. <br />The have chosen to string buildable lots across almost the entire eastern slope. The <br />Applicant has chosen to allow building in areas where LIDAR maps show scarps. The <br />geologist also demonstrates how storm water run-off poses threats to the Ribbon Trail <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.