Attachment B <br />Mr. Will Dixon testified on behalf of the applicant. He agreed with the findings of the <br />staff report and to the recommended conditions of approval. He noted that the subject <br />property is located in the Willamette River Greenway, but not within the protected buffer <br />immediately adjacent to the river. He stated that the location of the proposed wall along the <br />west boundary of the property could be perfected at the time of final PUD approval. He <br />identified a September 27, 2013 letter from the applicant's traffic consultant that showed peak <br />hour vehicle trips estimated between 15-29 trips, which did not warrant a traffic impact study. <br />Numerous persons testified in support of the application. Many in support are "members" of <br />the co-housing project and expressed their aspirations for the quality of life they desired from <br />the co-housing development. At least on proponent stated that the flexibility of design <br />provided by the PUD provisions was well suited to the co-housing design. Another proponent <br />suggested that the proposal met the density and design goals set forth in the Metro Plan and <br />Envision Eugene. <br />Numerous neighbors testified in opposition to the application. Attorney Lauren Regan spoke <br />on behalf of many of those neighbors. She stated that the residents of 21 homes on Oakleigh <br />Lane were opposed to the application. The wall proposed for the western boundary was <br />identified as particularly offensive to neighbors. She stated that the Metro Plan requires <br />density such as that proposed to be located closer to River Road, not at a dead end of a small <br />lane. <br />She asserted that the Willamette Greenway (statewide planning goal) was not met, and the <br />proposal would also violate Goal 5. She also testified that the proposal did not provide <br />sufficient screening from neighboring properties or the Willamette Greenway and associated <br />bike path. <br />Other neighbors testified that the density and size of the proposed buildings were simply too <br />large for a lane predominated by single family residences. Many neighbors were alarmed that a <br />significant amount of fill would be needed to bring the eastern portion of the property above <br />the floodplain level in order to allow development. Fears were expressed that the filled area <br />would adversely impact the underlying sewer and would shunt stormwater onto the open <br />space area between the subject property and the bike path. <br />Several neighbors suggested that a TIA should be required because even by the applicant's <br />calculation of 168 new daily vehicles trips, the increase represents a 145% increase in traffic <br />over existing levels. Opponents also asserted that the safety of pedestrians, children and <br />bicyclists would be threatened by the increased number of cars. At least one opponent <br />asserted that a traffic analysis should also look at impacts on the commercial zoned lands along <br />River Road near the intersection with Oakleigh. <br />Several neighbors objected to the decreased setbacks proposed for several buildings. They felt <br />that such setbacks are so much smaller than what is typical in the neighborhood that they <br />would be incompatible with the look and feel of the existing lane. Similarly, the neighbors felt <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 2 <br />