Ken Helm, City of Eugene <br />Re: Final Rebuttal - Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />4. Setbacks <br />In order to cluster development away from the adjoining City <br />parkland to the east, the applicants are proposing to locate parking facilities <br />along the western side of the property, and provide an eight-foot "green <br />wall" along the western property boundary to screen this development from <br />the adjoining properties. As staff. notes, Eugene Code would allow this <br />diminished setback provided that the applicant obtains an easement.- from <br />adjoining property owners to the west that provides a "a 10-foot separation <br />between buildings on separate lots." The staff properly included a condition <br />of approval on page 29 of the staff report (Condition 13) requiring either the <br />easements, or that "the final PUD plans show all structures setback at least <br />five feet from the property lines." <br />Two of the neighboring property owners to the west have since <br />objected to the proposal, and indicated that they would not provide such an <br />easement.2 Accordingly, during the first open record period ending on <br />October 9, 2013, the applicant submitted revised site plans indicating how the <br />PUD can be modified to accommodate the 5-foot setback. Oakleigh Meadow <br />Co-Housing continues to support the condition as drafted, but notes that it is <br />feasible to develop the PUD without such easements. <br />5. Screening <br />The subject application provides adequate screening from surrounding <br />properties "including but not limited to anticipated building locations, bulk <br />and height" as required by EC 9.8320(3). As indicated in the detailed staff <br />analysis beginning on page 6 and continuing through page 9, the proposal <br />provides adequate screening from the surrounding properties. <br />Opponents have challenged screening primarily based on one of the <br />screening elements themselves - the green wall located on the western edge <br />of the property. As noted at the hearing, the screening is defined . by the <br />Eugene Code to include any "method of visually shielding or obscuring an <br />area through the use of fencing, walls, berms or densely-planted vegetation." <br />EC 9.0500 (Emphasis added). The high wall itself is the screening required <br />by EC 9.8320(3). There is no requirement in the code to provide screening for <br />screening elements. <br />Other opponents have complained about their screening along the <br />eastern boundary of the subject property as impeding view to or from the <br />2 A third neighbor, Anthony Towne, has also objected to providing an <br />easement along his property boundary. However, Mr. Towne's property is <br />located at 127 McClure Lane to the south and does not require,an easement. <br />439 <br />