HE-63 <br />E <br />September 27,2013 <br />Bigene Hearings Official <br />Eugene Planning and'Development <br />Atrium Building <br />99 West. 1Oth Ave_ <br />Eugene OR 97401 <br />Re ' Citizen. Comment Document Regarding the Oakdeigh Meadows Tentafive..Plann0d Unit <br />Development.(PDT 13-0001) and Willamette Greenway Permit (WG 13-0001) <br />Dear Hearings. Official, <br />T object to the proposed PUD for the reasons stated in the Comments of Lauren Regan and. Bryn <br />Thonis., and. all additional obj ections. incoiporated by reference::into that :Coininent: I am. also a <br />member of the RverRoad Community Organization. and submit niy comrnent;gn:behalf of the <br />RRCO as well. _ <br />My additional ._questions and c6Mments 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. David.and Joan, fhe: current property owners of the proposed Oakleigh <br />Meadows Coliousing (OMC) project, moved from Oakleigh Lane and purchased the house and. <br />land at the adjacent south street on-McClure Lane. When David and Joan moved. from Oakleigh <br />Lane and purchased the house and property they told us they would. love to see cottages and <br />gardens (7-10 units). Now they. have proposed developing the property with.7 large-to..wnhouses. <br />a6d l: huge common house: Their.appl ication has many inaccuracies; the applicant has been <br />deceptive, and OMC has ignored neighbor's concerns. The original vision is completely out of <br />perspective.. <br />It is sad that David and Joan fought for Rasor :Park to keep it in its natural state and opposed the <br />Cell Tower at the end of :Oakleigh but now they are trying, to. cram 29 units into a: very small area <br />on a quiet unimproved.lane they no longer live on.. <br />.I understand code and. I understand that it-as legal to-put 14 units on each. acre of property in our <br />area. I understand the: concept, of infill and I. have never been against :development of the.:OMC <br />}operty.. However, what. I am opposed to is that we only have 20 homes total ..on. our entire %i <br />mile lane and OMC will more than double the number of homes;. all on..anun-improved dead-end <br />lane. The proposed development is. not compatible with the existing neighborhood. and the <br />applicant. has not shown.:sub. stantial,.evidence.that.the:increased'trafficwill have mi <br />m imp <br />nal ' : acts <br />to the neighborhood. Doubling the traffic will have..substantial impact to the neighborhood. <br />• <br />1133 <br />