' existing 20 ft ROW. In addition, Building 1 is proposed to be placed within 16 feet of the existing asphalt <br />surface. To summarize, the applicant is trying to squeeze as many units into the project site as possible. <br />' This does preclude TL 200 from having adequate access for future development. <br />The street connectivity study presents a future access road along the west side of TL 200 for three flag <br />' lots. TL 200 is about 1 acre in size and zoned R-1, so effectively a development on TL 200 could have 14 <br />units, especially if we ignore the sanitary sewer easement. Essentially the current owner or future owner <br />of TL 200 could place approximately 12 units on TL 200, not simply three lots following standard <br />prescriptive R-1 standards (building size and proper setbacks) as is presented in the shadow plat of the <br />street connectivity study for OMC project. It should be kept in mind, that if the OMC application is <br />approved with limited conditions, as the City Staff Report has recommended, then TL 200 should be able <br />to follow the same Planned Unit Development process and develop the lot with potentially 14 units per <br />' acre. <br />To add to this, TL 5400 and TL 2800 (133 E Hilliard) are all owned by the same owner of TL 200, thus <br />the 3 tax lots could be pulled into a much larger PUD and effectively place 22 to 23 units (total acreage <br />1.7) on the project site as well as connect E Hilliard to Oakleigh Lane. The most cost effective and least <br />effect on the Greenway and 100 yr floodplain of the Willamette River, is to place the connector road on <br />' top of the sanintary sewer easement that runs north-south in the eastern portion of the property which is <br />below base flood elevation. In order to connect the streets with limited consumption of net useable <br />acreage, a full 45 ft. ROW should be dedicated all the way to the east end of the existing Oakleigh Lane <br />ROW. The connector street would have to do a dog-leg into TL 200, and most of the cedar trees <br />"claimed" for tree preservation by the OMC applicant would have to be removed, but allowing for the full <br />45 ft ROW, would significantly decrease the consumption of useable acreage on TL 200 and TL 5400. <br />The street connectivity exemption should not be approved, and the application should be denied, because <br />the exemption study and proposed 33 ft ROW does not allow for TL 200 to be developed to the maximum <br />extent possible. <br />West Property Line <br />The garages proposed for the west property line are not in compliance with EC setback requirements. <br />The applicant has proposed to put the garages west wall directly on the west property line and there is no <br />easement on the neighboring property. The owners of the property have stated to the City that they do not <br />plan to provide and easement, thus the garages will have to be moved off the property line by 5 feet. This <br />is conditioned in the Staff Report. If the garages have to move by 5 feet, this would push the whole <br />project 5 feet further east into the floodplain, pushing Building 2 over the 20 feet wide sewer easement on <br />the east. Structures are not allowed to be placed on top of the City sewer easement, thus a unit or 2 may <br />have to be removed, or the buildings will need to be rearranged to comply. This could change the whole <br />site plan and could be significant enough to suggest that the other portions of the project area may not <br />comply. This is too significant of a change to the plan to accept as it is and the PUD application should <br />be denied. <br />Screening <br />The applicant has not proposed screening on any of the property boundaries. Per EC 9.8320 (3) the <br />applicant needs to show how the buildings will be screened from the neighboring properties. The staff <br />Page 15 of 20 <br />