Laserfiche WebLink
<br />provisions that discussed not allowing neighborhood commercial on River Road, but <br />allowing it in other locations in the neighborhood. He felt the proposed amendment met <br />the criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Flock stated that the multi-family standards articulated and quantified many of the <br />architectural elements identified for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless agreed with Mr. Hledik that the staff recommendation looked like design <br />review' with the inclusion of particular architectural criteria. <br /> <br />Ms. O'Donnell averred that if the Planning Commission adopted the findings drafted by <br />Mr. Hledik, implementation of somewhat vague language would be difficult. <br /> <br />Mr. Flock said in the context of the commercial standards that would apply through the <br />land use application process, lack of clarity would make it difficult to implement <br />something above and beyond the commercial standards, leaving it unclear what level of <br />architectural detail was required. He added the findings would be subject to <br />interpretation in how staff applied them in a recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless opined it may be more appropriate to leave the findings as a text amendment <br />open to interpretation and rely upon site or PUD review. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission's choices: <br />. To not consider a text change. <br />. If a text change was made, how mandatory should it be; should the language be <br />"encouraging" language rather than firm. <br />. If the text change language was mandatory, the Commission's intent on how it <br />should be used in the future needed to be explained. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom said ifthere was no text change, and PUDs or other implementation tools <br />were relied upon, those tools would need to be identified. <br /> <br />MiNUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />November 19, 2007 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />