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 26 <br /> <br /> <br />The applicant concurs in all the recommended conditions. <br /> <br />The applicant also concurs with the Staff Report conclusion, stated at page 44, that this <br />development proposal is exempt from Geological and Geotechnical Analysis requirements of EC <br />9.6710 for the reason that the site as a whole is on the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(11): The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including <br />such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality. <br /> <br />1. The operative standa <br />this standard should not be applied under the Needed Housing Statute. <br /> <br />2. The Staff Report at 55-56 provides a competent summary of the evidence in the record that <br />supports a finding - <br />concur with the staff and incorporate those findings. <br /> <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(12): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br /> <br />1. <br />value judgment, which is beyond the scope of the Needed Housing Statute allows. <br /> <br />2. The Staff Report at 57- <br />finding by the HO. We recommend that analysis. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />As is evident from the scale and intensity of the opposition, this neighborhood does not want this <br />infill project at this site, even though the City has determined that this site is intended for just this <br />kind of use at about this proposed density. Perhaps the best recommendation we have for <br />approval is the positive and detailed review by the city staff. We hope the HO concurs with the <br />applicant and the city staff and approves the use as proposed to be conditioned. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Bill Kloos <br /> <br />Bill Kloos <br /> <br />Client <br />Schirmer Satre Group <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.