require a PUE on that tax lot, Again, no evidence has been provided to substantiate compliance with this <br />standard.. - <br />Despite the lack of substantial evidence provided by the Applicant, and based upon the information <br />above, a total of 0.51 acres must be removed from the total gross net density of 2.34 acres. The total net <br />acreage for the unit density calculation is 1.83 acres, Maximum number of units allowable in the OMC <br />project property is 26 (1,83 x 14 = 25.7). <br />If all residential units are accounted for, the applicant fails to comply with R-1 density standards and the <br />proposal must be denied. See also EC9.2751 and table 9.2750. Normally, PUDs of this nature would <br />assume that % of the acreage would be foreclosed from development due to easements, etc., which is why <br />one would expect to see a density request closer to 10 units per acre instead of 14. In fact, 23 units on 2.3 <br />gross acres is 10 units per acre, which is the definition of low density residential in the Metro Plan. <br />3. The applicant has not provided substantial evidence thatthe PUD complies with EC 9.8320 (12) <br />and (13) <br />The development is not compatible and harmonious with adjacent uses and far exceeds the "minimal off- <br />site impacts" to storm water, noise and traffic. EC 9.8320 (12) and (13). In addition, Lane County <br />Guideline 10-322.15 (m) affirms the code requirement of "Compatibility with the site and surrounding <br />area." <br />Many of our objections to the development as currently proposed hinge on the incompatibility of the <br />development with the surrounding area-both residential and park/open space/Greenway. OMC condo <br />development is incompatible because (1) it contains 7 large buildings that span property line to property <br />line (2) it will more than double the traffic, (3) the large buildings and 8 foot-cementwalls fail to provide <br />adequate setbacks and f ail to provide any/adequate screening between the existing neighbors and the <br />heavily used park land to the east, and (4) so many multifamily units in an area of single-family <br />residential development on quarter-acre lots is also largely incompatible. The development proposes <br />incompatible size and placement of proposed OMC buildings. Oakleigh Lane currently consists of <br />nineteen residential structures with an average size of 1370 sq. ft. All of the homes have large yards, and <br />screening between each other. The proposed 28 residential units, plus 4 hotel rooms in a giant "common <br />building," plus 28 unsightly garages right at the very edge of property line, gravely exceeds any of the <br />existing.properties and is incompatible. As stated elsewhere, the Lower River Road Concept Plan allows <br />dense development near River Road, and single-family low-density development near the river. This <br />condo proposal directly contradicts the intentions of this planning document as well as the Greenway <br />Standards. <br />The PUD will create f ar more than minimal impacts on the existing neighborhood by greatly increasing <br />traffic, both from residents and the general public that will utilize our lane (see above), will significantly <br />increase noise-both during construction, public events, and simply having 32 more residential units <br />with upwards of 100 people living in that space, and may significantly increase run-off from the- 25 <br />garages and 7 buildings built upon the floodplain and within the sensitive Greenway. The addition'of 47 <br />cars and an average of 168 automobile trips per day is NOT a minimal off-site impact to the <br />neighborhood. Currently the people on the east end of Oakleigh Lane may have 3 to 5 cars drive by their <br />homes on a daily basis. The addition of 168 trips will have an enormous impact to the surrounding <br />neighbors. In addition, the neighbors immediately north of OMC's access will now have 47 cars leaving <br />their parking lot every morning with headlights flashing into the front windows. OMC failed to comply <br />with Eugene City Code 9.8320 (3), and instead has stated that screening on the neighbor's property (not <br />4 <br />800 <br />