Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

felt River Road \vas being "turned into" another West 11th Avenue. She viewed the proposal as segregated land use and 110t a mixed land use as one parcel would be residential and the other was being requested to be changed to C-2, commercial. She averred that the plan did 110t supply adequate dwellings. She asserted that there \V'ere several pieces of C-2 land that were vacant and available and underscored the request to keep the land zoned C-l. Catherine Lesiak, 1600 East Beacon Drive, said it was the City's responsibility to answer to the present and future needs of its citizens and to consider the environment. She opined that the citizens of Santa Clara did not need more C-2 developments; rather it needed more restaurants and smaller retail stores. She did not think the area needed more traffic or more impervious parking lots. She declared that Santa Clara needed a community center, a "place with souL" She believed the future would not be based on automobile travel as the petroleum industry would not last forever. She underscored her feeling that C-2 zoning was not the best use for former public lands. Dawn Lesley, 4495 River Road, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle. She said the Planning Commission had the opportunity to "draw a line in the sand" against big box stores and parking lots. Joan Haworth-Lin, 100 Green Lane, said she was a member of the third generation to own Green Lane property next to one of the subject properties. She related that having lived through changes she and her family had decided to rezone their property to GO, General Office. She pointed out that the circled property on Exhibit &2 submitted by Oregon West Management was her property. She asked the commission to refer to Recommendation #4 out of the Oregon West Management application materials which stated that rezoned parcels north of Santa Clara Square and south of Green Lane were for professional office use and to understand that this text included her property. She submitted her testimony in writing. Keith Walton, 1640 Beacon Drive, echoed the comments of Ms. Perle and Ms. Lesiak. Mr. Duncan called for staff response to the testimony. Ms. O'Donnell clarified that when they had gone through the 2004 plan cleanup it was intended to better reflect the refinement sub-plans. She said Attachment 8 and the memorandum from Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter delineated evidence of why staff had struggled with the proposal and, based on the evidence, had arrived at the conclusion that designating the entire property as commercial could be contrary to the adopted policies. She also related that staff did not feel that the Government and Education designation in the refinement plan \vas inconsistent with the Low Density Residential designation in the Metro Plall. She stated that there was a requirement in the land use code that the Metro Plan would overrule the refinement plan only where inconsistencies applied. Mr. Duncan called for questions for staff. Mr. Duncan seemed to remember, regarding the "blob diagram," that a change had occurred in it. He recalled a discussion on the properties that were public lands at the time and that it had been detem1ined that those lands would default to residential. He asked for some clarity on why this change in the procedure had occurred when they had gone through the "housekeeping process" MfNUTES--Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing October 18, 2007 Page 6