Laserfiche WebLink
<br />with regard to the diagram. He asked what had occurred with the public lands at the time that had <br />not been looked at as available for future development. <br /> <br />Ms. O'Donnell responded that the information she had was similar to what the applicant had just <br />submitted in Attachment 8, wherein the site in question had been reviewed and it had been <br />determined that it should not be designated as commercial at that time because ofthe same River <br />Road retlnement plan policies that staff is struggling \-vith now as discussed on the last page of the <br />submitted email from Kurt Yeiter. <br /> <br />Mr, Duncan called for rebuttal from the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Satre said he would like an explanation for why public land would default to Low Density <br />Residential zoning in the River Road/Santa Clara plan. He averred that the projected need in the <br />1987 refinement plan for commercial property in the area was 174 acres and in 1989 there \vere <br />only 161 acres potentially available. He noted that this was a combination of the commercial <br />property in use and the available vacant lands. <br /> <br />Mr. Satre noted that it had been mentioned in testimony that there was a lot of vacant C-2 <br />property in the area. He disputed this. He noted that one of the properties cited was under <br />construction. He asserted that if demand was not exceeding the supply of commerdalland it was <br />"at least giving it a mn for the money." He reminded the commission that the existing property <br />was not completely zoned Low Density Residential as a portion of it was zoned C-l. He noted <br />that it had been asserted in testimony that over 100 homes could be built on the property. He felt <br />this did not take into consideration the existing C-I zoning nor did it consider the land needed for <br />public rights of way and infrastructure. <br /> <br />Mr. Satre reiterated the applicant's intention to develop 50 dwelling tmits. He asserted that this <br />would not diminish capacity on the site. He reiterated that the utilization of this property as the <br />applicant proposed would have an impact on the miles driven by neighborhood residents by <br />bringing commercial services closer to home. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland wondered ifthe plans as the applicant conceived of them were not consistent with <br />C-l zoning. Mr. Satre replied that C-llimited commercial enterprises to 5,000 square teet. He <br />stated that the applicant indicated that he would voluntarily limit the size of commercial <br />enterprises to 18,000 square feet, which was substantially less than the size permitted by C-2 <br />zoning. He averred that this would not allow a "big box" store to be established there. He <br />commented that if there was such a zoning as a "C-l.5" this would be the zoning change that the <br />applicant would seek. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik asked if a map was available that indicated the build out of commerdallands along <br />River Road and showed which were vacant and which were occupied. Mr. Flock replied that he <br />did not think such a map was readily available. He added that the map staffhad was the one <br />adopted in the Refinement Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing and closed the record. <br /> <br />Ms. O'Donnell said deliberation was tentatively scheduled for November 5. <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />October 18,2007 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />