Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Duncan said the applicant suggested a general idea of what type of project would be <br />developed if the application was supported by the Commission, but that was not part of <br />the application, and asked if that level of detail was desirable in a refinement plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom responded the applicant's suggestion went deeper than was typically seen in <br />refinement plan policy text, approaching more the project level and more design specific. <br />Thus, it was not presented in a manner typically handled in refinement plan text. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik expressed reluctance to remove the language because the community <br />cherished the old school, and it was important for something to be preserved or <br />commemorated at the site. He was less concerned about the details than he was about <br />removing the entire requirement for preservation or commemoration, and was <br />comfortable with letting the architects address the issue. There were provisions in the <br />refinement plan that should be considered, specifically, the commercial and industrial <br />lands policy 5 .1 (b) and 5 .1 (c), related to landscaped parking lots, River Road frontage, <br />consolidation and minimization of access points onto River Road. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Flock said those points would be <br />considered in the context of PUD. As a higher order of a Type 3 application, all of the <br />policy and text ofthe plan would be subject to review. It would need to be codified in <br />order to apply through the site review application. As a combined proposal it would <br />address 5.1 provisions. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik Ms. O'Donnell said road improvements <br />mitigations under Goal 12 would be conditions of approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll was concerned with Mr. Hledik's proposed draft findings. He opposed the <br />application and was concerned about interpretations of the policies. He expressed <br />concern specifically about the proposed findings for ECLS 6 and 22, Metro Plan B(6), <br />River Road/Santa Clara refinement plan Policy 3, which were recorded by staff, such as <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />November 19,2007 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />