f ~A'75 <br />JANISCH Amy C <br />From: TAYLOR Becky G <br />Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:25 AM <br />To: JANISCH Amy C <br />Subject: FW: Public comment on the proposed Oakleigh Meadow Co-housing development <br />Follow Up Flag: Follow up <br />Flag Status: Flagged <br />Please add to PDT 13-1 record. <br />Becky Taylor, Associate Planner <br />City of Eugene Planning <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />541-682-5437 <br />From: mairaffettyftmail. com [mailto:majraffeftCc~gmall.com] On Behalf OfMaj Hutchinson <br />Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:28 PM <br />To: TAYLOR Becky G <br />Subject: Public comment on the proposed Oakleigh Meadow Co-housing development <br />Dear Ms. Taylor, <br />I want to let you know that I'm very concerned about the Oaldeigh Meadow Co-housing project under <br />consideration at the Oct. 2nd hearing. I am a concerned neighbor living on Oakleigh Lane. My family <br />has been here for the past seven years. Our family has a young child who rides her bike in the street <br />and crosses the street to visit neighbors. The disagreement regarding the proposed Oakleigh Meadow <br />Co-housing project and the neighborhood is complicated. <br />My husband and I were excited about the initial idea of a small co-housing project. We were looking <br />forward to having a few more families on the street. We attended many of the OMC gatherings during <br />the summer and met the people involved. We've been impressed with the community building among <br />the group and what heart-f ul and lovely folks are involved with it. I have lived in co-housing for five <br />years and I'm a fan of this community-focused living arrangement. I am not anti-development. I am <br />opposed to this project in its current size. <br />The number of units proposed (28) is too many for this small, dead-end street neighborhood. Adding <br />47 more cars to our street is almost unthinkable in terms of traffic impact; it more than doubles the <br />current number. The current size is also too big f or this environment. If there were less units, they <br />would not need to push so far down toward the river. It may well be (as they have stated) that this <br />group needs to build 28 units to generate enough income to make units affordable for members and <br />to make mortgages low enough for banks to approve them. I understand that. But that doesn't mean <br />that this is the appropriate setting for a project of this size. <br />This is privately owned land that will ultimately be developed. I understand and accept that fact. The <br />question is how will that happen? Will it be in a way that takes into account the existing community <br />on the street andmorks to find compromise? Some of the responses to opposition from OMC on the <br />1217 <br />