Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 15 <br /> <br /> <br />3. This standard was a focus of opposition. <br /> <br />Opposition points to potential lot coverage stressing the amount of area on individual lots that <br />could still be developed despite the areas of the site that will be preserved under the site plan. <br />The HO should rely on the Staff Report analysis, which emphasizes the areas that will provide <br />screening and preserve trees and vegetation instead of the potentially developable area on each <br />lot. <br /> <br />Opposition states its concerns about building heights. All residential construction in this project <br />will meet code standards for the R-1 zone. In this respect, the structures will be similar to the <br />other nearby structures in the R-1 zone. The HO should find that structures in a neighborhood <br />that are all subject to the same height limitations will be compatible with each other in terms of <br />height. Any screening to be preserved on the site will enhance compatibility. <br /> <br />Opposition states its concern about the efficacy of unstated future CC&Rs to contribute to <br />screening. The HO should base her findings about the adequacy of screening on the proposed <br />binding aspects of the site plan under consideration, the applicable residential development <br />standards, and recommended conditions not the potential contribution of future, unarticulated <br />CC&Rs. <br /> <br />Opposition generally critiques the screening proposal, stating that it is not enough: the houses <br />could be huge, too many trees will be cut, and future trails in the park to the north may expose <br />future park users to a view of the houses. The applicant understands that when neighbors oppose <br />the potential for new neighbors, the mitigation proposals will never be enough. The applicant <br /> not <br />To what extent should existing single family neighbors be entitled to screening from <br />more single family neighbors, when the ultimate policy choice in the plan and the code is to <br />develop vacant residential land at planned densities? Existing neighbors are not entitled to be <br />completely screened from future neighbors living in houses just like theirs. The standard is <br />. The HO should find, based on the record, that the proposed screening will be <br />adequate, as recommended by staff. <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following: <br />(a) Protection of Natural Features. <br />* * * * <br />2. <br />a. but not <br />limited to anticipated building locations, bulk and height, location and distribution <br />of recreation space, parking, roads, access and other uses, will: <br />(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural <br />features and vegetation, and <br /> <br /> <br />