He.__53 <br />September 27,201.3 <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />Eugene Plahnirig and Development <br />Atrium Building <br />99 West 10th Aye: <br />Eugene OR 97401 <br />Re Citizen-CQMMet t Docuinent Regarding the Oaklelgh Meadows Tentatiive..Planned Unit <br />DevelopnPht (PDT 13-0001) and Willa* tte Grwnwa~ Permit (WG 13-0001) <br />Dear Hearuigs.'Offi.cial, <br />T object to the proposed PUD forth-6reasons stated in-fhe Comments. of Lauren Regan and. Bryn <br />Thoxris; anct all additional objections: incoiporatedby reference:into that Cornrrtent I am. also a <br />member of the River Road Community Organizatipn and submit My couirrient.,on,behalf of the <br />RRCO-as well. <br />My additionaLquestions and comments are as follows: <br />the current size of the proposed project _of 29 units, isn't what was originally discussed with the. <br />existing neighborhood. Davidand Joan, the: current property owners p f the proposed Oakleigh <br />Wadows Colrousing.(OMC) project, moved froth Oakleigh Lane andpurehascd the house and, <br />land at the Adjacent south street on.McClure Latie. When David and Joan moved. from Oakleigh <br />Lane and purchased the house and property. 'they told us they wotild.love to see cottages and <br />gardens (7-10 units.. Now they.haveproposed develop ingthe, propertyw_ith7 large-tawnhouses <br />and kluge common house:- 'Their application has-many maceuracies; theapplzcaini'has been <br />deceptive; and 4MC has ignored hbighbor's-concern. 'Ibe original vision is completely Qat of <br />perspective. <br />It is sad 'thaf David and Joan fought for Rasor-Park to keep it in its iiatural "state and opposed the <br />Cell Tower at the end of.Oakleigb but now they are trying, to. cram 29 uo:its into .a-very small area <br />on a quiet.unimp axed. -lane. they h6 :longer live on. <br />J understand code and I understand that it"is legal to-put 14 units: on each.-acre of property iii oiir <br />area I understand the concept. of infill and I- have never been against:development- of the QMC <br />property. However, whatl; airy opposed to is that. we only have 20. homes total; on. our• entire V2 <br />mile lane and OMC' will more-than- double the numbez ofhomes; all on an un-'improved dead-end <br />lane. The proposed'development is. not coinpafible with the existing neigh bgrhoo.d•, and .the <br />applicant has not shown. substantial evidence .that. the increased traffic will have niinumal i1n*pacts- <br />to theneighborhood. Doubling the traffic will bave_substantial impact to the neighborhood. <br />1133 F <br />