PUD Decision Put


Strong community turnout for proposed Hendricks Park development extends meeting and process

NEWS BY MAX THORNBERRY POSTED ON 03/15/2018















                                                                                


https://www.eugeneweekly.com/category/news/https://www.eugeneweekly.com/author/max-thornberry/https://www.eugeneweekly.com/2018/03/15/pud-decision-put-on-hold/Press_files/Cover%20Letter%20-%20Peter%20Craycroft%20-%20University%20of%20Oregon.docxshapeimage_2_link_0shapeimage_2_link_1shapeimage_2_link_2

Land use hearings official Virginia

Gustafson Lucker did not rule March 7 on

the tentative Capital Hill Planned Unit

Development (PUD). The hearing process

was extended until April 6, and a final

decision will be announced by April 20.

More than 100 people attended the

hearing at Harris Hall, which lasted more

than three hours. City officials were not

available for comment following the

hearing, as the process is not complete.

The PUD has been an object of contention

for residents in Eugene’s Fairmont and

Laurel Hill Valley neighborhoods for more

than a year. Opponents of the plan argued that expanding the neighborhood will endanger current residents as well as Hendricks Park to the north.

Representatives for Tom Dreyer, the applicant for the development, briefly outlined the benefits of the PUD, including an added road that would allow cars and emergency vehicles to turn around, and the widening of Capital Drive at the top.

Carol Schirmer, the lead landscape architect for the project, reminded the hearing official the proposed plan will not develop the area at maximum density and the developed density would be “consistent with the current density.”

For many of PUD opponents, concerns about density have taken a backseat to concerns about safety and tree conservation. They laughed at Schirmer’s comment that all of the trees would be preserved until a building permit was submitted.

Both Schirmer and attorney Bill Kloos, who argued the South Hills Study should not be applied to the proposed area, claimed the issue is about a lack of housing.

Schirmer argued that challenges to developments in Eugene are not particular to this area, but they are “pervasive” throughout the city. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the plan, agreeing with Schirmer that Eugene is facing a housing crisis.

Public opposition to the project consumed most of the public comment period. A lengthy presentation by the neighborhood’s Joint Response Committee was followed by a parade of neighbors concerned about traffic, safety and environmental impacts of thinning the trees south of the park.

Time was set aside for the city planners and engineers involved with the project to respond; however, they said they wanted to address the wide range of concerns in detail. Instead, city staff conceded their time to respond to public comments. Their responses will be available online when they are submitted.

Cynthia Dreyer, the co-applicant, argued on behalf of the opportunity the development has to create a vibrant neighborhood. She also appealed to historic city approvals to develop the land in question.

Normally the record for hearings is left open for seven days. Due to the large number of testimonies and the high level of interest, that period has been extended. New testimony and evidence can be submitted until March 21.

Both opponents and proponents of the PUD have until March 30 to respond to anything submitted but cannot produce any new material. The Dreyers — who, as the applicants, shoulder the burden of proof — have until April 6 to offer final rebuttals.


Comments and observations:


  1. 1)“Cynthia Dreyer, the co-applicant, argued on behalf of the opportunity the development has to create a vibrant neighborhood.” Fairmount and Laurel Hill, have been, are and will long remain wonderful, vibrant and divers neighborhoods. Witness the neighbors on The Committee who presented and those who came forward to testify.


  1. 2)Schirmer argued that challenges to developments in Eugene are not particular to this area, but they are “pervasive” throughout the city. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the plan, agreeing with Schirmer that Eugene is facing a housing crisis.” Certainly a housing crisis exists. Applying a cost benefit analysis, this project is clearly a disaster and by no means a solution.


  1. 3)“She (Cynthia Dreyer) also appealed to historic city approvals to develop the land in question.” The City and the Community need to do a reset on the the values/criterion that define the urban growth boundary. The high value that we rightfully placing on open space outside the boundary should not lead us to destroy the rare, valuable natural areas within the boundary. The City is promoting development at all costs, rationalizing the urban growth boundary/need for greater density.

on Hold