with residential development standards at EC 9.2750, which requires structures to be setback five feet <br />from property lines and 10 feet between structures. The parking area standards at EC 9.6420 require <br />vehicle parking spaces to be on a durable, dust-free surface, with a seven-foot wide landscape strip <br />abutting the property line-gravel increases dust, and cannot be established to be a dust free surface. <br />Instead of proper setbacks, the developer plans to build a giant 8-f oot tall concrete wall along the <br />property line that also violates setback standards. No easement will be granted to the development by <br />the adjacent landowner, the Brandts, who oppose the development as currently proposed. No requested <br />modification should be granted for this wall. The proposed cement wall is an insult to the existing <br />neighbors who will have their viewshed destroyed by an ugly 8-f oot tall cement wall that completely <br />blocks all view of what once was a viewshed to the river corridor. In addition, inadequate screening is <br />proposed at the access to the parking lot (planting strip). The neighbors understand that some <br />development will likely occur on this parcel, but to have the closest boundary between the "welcoming" <br />condo development and the existing neighborhood consist of an industrial wall, raises further concerns <br />thatthis cohousing project is just an elitist gated community in sheep's clothing. <br />The North property line also violates setback standards and thus the PUD also fails to provide <br />substantial evidence that the plan complies with code. Said code forbids private landscaping and <br />stormwater facilities within a special setback and the applicant failed to prove compliance with this <br />standard.. The proposed buildings are just south of the special setback, which means that those buildings <br />would not have sufficient setbacks from the street if it is widened in the future ...and with 32 living units <br />and over 5 0 cars, it seems likely that the lane will require expansion if approved as proposed. <br />Building 1 appears to provide only 'A a f oot of setback (required to have at least 10-and eventhat is <br />unsightly) and thus fails to comply with code requirements. NO modification should be granted to these <br />standards (the f act that they would seek modifications to further encroach upon the preexisting <br />neighbors who strongly oppose their development plan further emphasizes the incompatibility between <br />this condo development and the single family residential lane. <br />Building 2's setbacks are also illegal and threaten to kill old-growth cedar trees located on the adjacent <br />property owned by the Thoms (and if roots are killed, this endangers the health and safety of their family <br />as well as condo owners). N o setback modification should b e granted. This area is adjacent to parkland, <br />and an existing public path/bike path joins the Oakleigh neighbors to the city park, bike path and river. <br />The Applicant needs to reduce the number of buildings they are trying to cram onto the parcels and <br />adequately set back this major development that is being thrust into a quiet single-family residential <br />neighborhood. <br />Units must be set back a distance from the north property line that is comparable to the setbacks for all of <br />the existing homes on Oakleigh Lane and neighboring McClure Lane. Currently the average setback of <br />homes along these two streets is approximately 35 feet. This is a very reasonable standard based on the <br />fact that they currently allege that they are only building on 45% of the property. This should give them <br />plenty of land to shift buildings accordingly. They have sacrificed the neighboring properties in order <br />create their own private open space contrary to law. <br />East Property Line - The east property line abuts City parkland, which is an undeveloped natural <br />resource area bordered by the Willamette River farther to the east. The PUD fails to provide substantial <br />evidence that this boundary complies with setback and screening standards and also gives rise to a denial <br />by City officials. The'applicant's tree removal and preservation plan (Sheet L3, Attachment D-4) indicates <br />that the 26-inch cedar will b e removed to accommodate three dwelling units abutting the north property <br />line. This building is approximately 10 feet from the east property line. (contrary to tree preservation <br />standards). Building 5 and 6 are setback seven and five feet from the southern property line, <br />6 <br />802 <br />