screening. Also, trees can not be planted in the 20 foot sanitary sewer easement that is partially on <br />OMC's property at the east. Per the code above, OMC should screen the east property boundary. In <br />addition, the screening should also meet Willamette Greenway Code (9.880) and Statewide Planning <br />Goal 15 (OAR 660-015-0005). <br />Eugene City Code 9.8320 (12). The proposed development shall have minimal off-site <br />impacts, including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental <br />quality. <br />The addition of 47 cars and potentially an average of 168 automobile trips per day is NOT a minimal off- <br />site impact to our neighborhood. Currently the people on the east end of Oakleigh Lane may have 3 to 5 <br />cars drive by their home on a daily basis. The addition of 168 trips will have an enormous impact to the <br />surrounding neighbors. In addition, the neighbors immediately north of OMC's access will now have47 <br />cars leaving their parking lot every morning with headlights flashing into the front windows. CIVIC has <br />offered screening per Eugene City Code 9.8320 (3) but on the neighbor's property (not theirs). The <br />neighbors should not. have to give up a portion of their yard in order to appease OMC. You also, can't <br />screen the access to a parking lot with plants. This negative impact will be unavoidable if approved at <br />its' current size. We do not want to have to put screening in our front yards! We like to be able to look <br />out our front windows and wave to a neighbor or watch our kids playing basketball. In addition, having <br />our front yards screened with tall vegetation will only welcome opportunity forthieves to be screened <br />from the public eye, creating security issues. Not to mention the decrease of sun to our yards if we need <br />to add screening to avoid traffic headlights. These are huge negative impacts to our properties and way <br />of life. <br />I would hope that based on the previously stated Eugene City Code Criteria that you would deny this. <br />request for a PUD in our neighborhood. However, we are realistic people and we understand that often <br />complete denial is not the outcome in these situations. All too often "infill" becomes the priority above <br />creating neighborhood compatibility or open space. If that should be the case, i would ask that you <br />please consider the following reasonable requests from a neighbor who has lived here for the past 17 <br />years and put a lot oftirtie, emotion, and money into making this neighborhood what it is today. <br />Reasonable requests based on my conversations with the David Adee, the neighborhood representative <br />for the applicants, and their own stated desires to "Continue the Rhythm of the Lane" and Eugene City <br />Code. <br />Units along the north property line of the Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing Development should be <br />single family detached units. There is no evidence provided from OMC that states why they could not <br />put smaller detached units along the north property line. This would be a small concession that would <br />greatly impact how this development appears and affects the neighboring properties to the north. <br />Units should have to be set back a distance from the north property line that is comparable to <br />the setbacks for all of the existing homes on Oakleigh Lane and neighboring McClure Lane. Currently <br />the average setback of homes along these 2 streets is approximately 35 feet. This is a very reasonable <br />request based on the fact that they currently state that they are only building on 45% of the property. <br />1108 <br />