Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. McKinney noted the applicable criteria for the application and indicated staff had been able to make <br />positive findings for all criteria. <br /> <br />Ms. McKinney reported that if the two bodies chose to deliberate separately, that the council was tentatively <br />scheduled to take action on March 12 and the board had a third reading scheduled March 21 and could <br />chose to take action that night. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff to distribute excerpts from the City Code that described the allowable uses in a <br />mixed-use residential area. She determined from Ms. McKinney that there was no actual development <br />proposal being considered at this time and that only the change in the Metro Plan from Campus Industrial to <br />MDR was under consideration. She asked if there was a minimum and maximum density in the MDR zone, <br />and what commercial uses were allowed in that zone. Ms. McKinney said the minimum density was 10 <br />units per acre, the maximum was 28 units per unit, and commercial uses were only permitted in an R-2 zone <br />if they went through the planned unit development (PUD) process. The developer must demonstrate those <br />uses would serve the PUD. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff if Chase Gardens had been a PUD. Ms. McKinney indicated that information <br />could be new evidence not already in the record. She said she could follow up for the next meeting. Ms. <br />Bettman asked if what councilors had to say did not go on the record. Ms. McKinney responded that the <br />question was on the record, but the provision of the information could be evidence not in the record. Ms. <br />Bettman said this was her first opportunity to weigh in on the issue, “that’s a question.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said there was no master plan and the applicant indicated intent to seek a PUD. The applicant <br />estimated there would be 4,000 square feet of commercial property but there was no requirement that they <br />do more or less. That would be up to the final PUD. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to the findings and the traffic impact analysis (TIA), which was based on the <br />assumption that the property would be MDR in spite of the fact that the applicant had indicated intent to <br />develop part of the property commercially. Ms. McKinney said the TIA was based on the amount of <br />commercial and residential planned in the development. Staff was evaluating the proposal based on the <br />request for a plan amendment. Ms. Bettman suggested that the applicant could seek to build more <br />commercial in the future after the plan amendment was granted. If the applicant decided to build 25,000 <br />square feet of commercial, that could be approved through the PUD process, regardless of the plan <br />amendment evaluation. Ms. Mckinney indicated that would not be possible, as the base zone would be <br />MDR and commercial would only be allowed to serve the residential use. The findings also assumed MDR <br />at certain levels. <br /> <br />Ms. McKinney said with regard to the TIA, any development that generated more than 100 peak trips would <br />require another TIA at the time of development. If the proposal exceeded that requirement, a TIA would be <br />required as part of the proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the City could require a master plan as part of the amendment process. City Attorney <br />Emily Jerome said any condition imposed must be based on the applicant’s otherwise failure to meet a <br />particular criterion. If there was a criterion the applicant could only meet with a master plan, the City could <br />potentially do so. The City’s past practice was to deny such applications because it was difficult to track <br />the changes and triggers generally included in such a plan over time. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 22, 2007 Page 2 <br /> Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene City Council <br /> <br />