Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

local zoning and development regulations. (Policy.4.23) If the City approves the applications before it, the applicant proposes steps to ensure that the site is developed as a (horizontal) mixed use center in that the residential portion of the site separated from the commercial portion of the site by Green Lane, will develop along with the commercial area. The applicant proposes refinement plan text amendments for an enhanced pedestrian crossing of Green Lane to unite the t,vo portions of the site as one "mixed use center." Mixed use is supported by the above mentioned policies. Per the Metro Plan, the definition of mixed use is: "A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different land uses such as housing, retail, and office uses" (page lll-A-9). The proposed development, as a "project or area of development" meets this definition as the project would have both a residential use and a commercial use component. The issue staff finds is not necessarily that this is not a mixed use development per the above definition; rather the issue is that the amount of commercial proposed is disproportionate to the amount of residential, especially considering the existing commercial uses in the surrounding area. Although none of the policies state a specific ratio for each use, Policy A 13 supports mixed use as an opportunity to obtain greater density. As previously stated, the proposal would actually reduce the amount of potential density for the site. Staff encouraged the applicant to incorporate a residential component on the commercial portion of the site not only to increase the mixed use function of the project by better integrating the two uses but also to increase density. Adding a residential component to the commercial area, along \vith the proposed IPO and ISR overlays, would also temper the commercial impacts bet\veen the project and existing ofT-site residences by reducing the dominance (and possibly the location) of the commercial development, consistent with Policy A.l3 and A.23. Staff notes that while the Commercial designation does not preclude residential use, nothing in the proposal requires residential use on the commercial portion. Regarding Policy A22, the policy direction is to "expand opportunities" for a mix of uses and the proposal provides a very limited mix of uses. While the applicant finds these policies to support their proposal, staff finds that the proposal is inconsistent with these policies that direct more residential density and less commercial uses than proposed. Comments from the SCCO specitIcally state concerns with the proposed commercial development abutting the R -1 zoned property to the east, citing the lack of transi tion shovvn on the more detailed site plan provided in the TIA. The applicant has not proposed a specific site plan as part of the amendment application, as is typical not to include at this policy level of planning action. However, stafT notes that in the event that the Planning Commission approves the proposed amendments, the refinement plan text may be the appropriate location to provide any specific conditions of approval regarding transition between the commercial and residential uses that is not already provided in the Eugene Code or by the applicant's proposed text amendments. Regarding Policy A.I3, the applicant also specifically discusses that the subject property is located within Potential Nodal Development Area 5-C in TransPlan. Although 5-C is not oftlcially recognized as a nodal development area on the Metro Plan land use diagram and is not required to develop in accordance with the nodal concept, the applicant's proposal is generally consistent with certain elements of nodal developments by including more than one use in the project area (a residential and a commercial component) and including pedestrian friendly designs. Staff Findings - October 8, 2007 Page 15