My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2018 3:49:29 PM
Creation date
4/9/2018 3:49:26 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
Document_Date
4/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas designated in the <br />Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban uses when alternative locations on <br />the property are suitable for development as otherwise permitted. <br />b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and sited to assure <br />preservation of significant on-site vegetation, topographic features, and other <br />unique and worthwhile natural features, and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard. <br /> <br />1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards and Hearing Letter explains why the elements of this <br />standard are not clear and objective and therefore make it inapplicable. <br /> <br />2. The Staff Report at 20 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend those <br />findings to the HO. <br /> <br />3. This standard was a focus of opposition. <br /> <br />The opposition assumes, without any evidence related to this site, that there are rare, sensitive <br />and vulnerable animal species on this site that would be impacted by this development. There is <br />no expert evidence to support this; it is a working assumption by opposition. <br /> <br />animals. That term is not defined in the code, as noted in our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards. <br />That assumption is not consist <br /> <br /> (b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve <br />significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having the following <br />characteristics given the highest priority for preservation: <br />1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base <br />zone or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria; <br />2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual <br />isolated trees subject to windthrow; <br />3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade <br />expansive areas of pavement; <br />4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; <br />5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback <br />areas; <br />6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; <br />7. Trees with significant habitat value; <br />8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets; <br />9. Trees located along a water feature; <br />10. Heritage trees. <br /> <br />1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards and Hearing Letter explains why the elements of this <br />standard are not clear and objective and therefore make it inapplicable. The standard calls for a <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.