Ken Helm, City of Eugene <br />Re: Final Rebuttal - Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />river.' However, as noted, the property is setback approximately two <br />hundred feet from the river, and is visually separated from the river itself by <br />existing trees on the adjoining City parkland. The screening requirements <br />do not require that the development be invisible from surrounding properties, <br />only that the subject property be adequately screened taking into account <br />development on the surrounding properties. With regard to the undeveloped <br />park property to the east, this screening is accomplished by a soft swale and <br />garden, which visually separate the development from the adjoining <br />parkland while maintaining the continuity of the existing meadow. This is <br />adequate screening for the undeveloped parkland, and City parks staff have <br />not required any additional measures. <br />6. Compatibility <br />. The Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing proposal is reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. The <br />proposed co-housing project is a low-density residential development in a <br />low-density residential zone. It is compatible with surrounding residential <br />development. <br />Opponents objections to size and purchase price for the units do not <br />provide any basis for concluding that the application does not meet the <br />applicable criteria. <br />The buildings themselves are governed by the same dimensional <br />standards - including height and lot coverage - that govern the homes on <br />neighboring lots. In fact, although the development includes multi-family <br />homes, as opponents acknowledge, the largest structure has a footprint that is <br />comparable to a large single-family home, while the smallest is <br />approximately the same size as homes on neighboring lots. While these <br />structures may not be identical to development on the surrounding <br />properties, the standard in EC 9.8320(13) is not identical but "reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious." The Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing project is <br />certainly compatible and harmonious with these surrounding uses under any <br />reasonable analysis. <br />The opponents also argue that the subject property is not reasonably <br />compatible because the purchase price for the units is higher than the <br />purchase price for their homes. The pricing of the individual units (while <br />' Some complaint is made regarding screening of property to the north. <br />However, as noted by staff, landscaping plans provide for continuous <br />landscaping in this area. <br />' In addition, as has been noted, the subject property is not on the City's Goal <br />5 inventory for the protection of scenic qualities and viewpoints. <br />440 <br />