Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

showing commercial land uses to the north, south and west of the site, depicts the 7.3 acre former Santa Clara Elementary School site as GovenunenUUtilities. Because the commercial uses are interrupted by the 7.3 acre former school site, staff does not believe that the proposed use is in an existing strip commercial area. Therefore, statT finds that this policy is inapplicable. However, even if the Planning Commission determines that the 7.3 acre portion of the site is within an existing strip commercial area, the majority of the site proposed fbr re-designation to commercial does not comply with Policy 3.0. Specifically, Policy 3.0 only allows expansion of existing strip commercial development "by infilling, redevelopment, or expansion onto contiguous property that does not front on River Road' (emphasis added). The applicant states that buildings ,viII be oriented away from River Road and towards an "internal circulation system", therefore the proposal does not front on River Road. Staff finds that the specific refinement plan text states expansion cannot occur onto contiguous property and does not discuss building orientation. In the context of tIus specific language, Tax Lot 9100 fronts on River Road and therefore can not be re-designated. If Tax Lot 1900 cannot be re-designated, then neither can Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 because they are no longer contiguous with existing strip commercial development. It appears then, that only Tax Lots 400, 300 and 200 could be re-designated to commercial since they are contiguous with existing commercial development (store, auto facility) and they do not front on River Road. The applicant also states that the existing RRSC and Metro Plan designations were appropriate when the site operated as a school, but that the sale of the school (and requirement to rezone upon sale per EC 9.2681(2)) was not forecasted by the writers of the plan, and that a commercial use is more appropriate for a strip commercial area. The applicant states that the Government and Education RRSC designation reflects the commitment for the land for non-residential purposes and that although the Metro Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential, this designation preceded the refinement plan designation and does not provide for eflicient development of the site as a center of activity for the community. The applicant contends that the proposed mixed use center \vill allow an integrated development that ",,,ill benefit the neighborhood. If the applicant is implying that a commercial designation is acceptable because the site was already committed to non-residential uses, staff disagrees. The Metro Plan states that "approximately 32 percent of the area is available for auxiliary uses, such as streets, elementary and junior high schools, neighborhood parks, other public facilities, neighborhood commercial services, and churches not actually shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Such auxiliary uses shall be allowed within residential designations if compatible with refinement plans, zoning ordinances, and other local controls for allowed uses in residential neighborhoods" (page II-G-3). Staff agrees that the Government and Education designation docs reflect a commitment to the non-residential purpose that existed at the time, the school, but that the underlying Low Density Residential designation reflects the commitment to uses consistent in that category. These uses include residential uses, non-residential uses such as government, schools, parks, and even some, limited commercial uses, subject to special standards or a PUD (EC 9.2741). Jv1inimize impacts of new commercial development intended to consolidate and improve existing strip commercial areas along River Road by requiring development standards. (Policy 5.0) Regarding Policy 5.0, as found under Policy 3.0 above, staff does not believe that the subject site is Staff Findings - October 8, 2007 Page 22