Laserfiche WebLink
<br />by shifting the zoning from C~ 1 to R-l. It was fair to consider long tenn impacts to the property <br />owner by changes in the policy through the action of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik said other policies in the commercial and industrial lands section of the RRSC Plan <br />that offered support for the applicant's request and justit1ed approval. <br />. Policy 5 anticipated there would be additional commercial development and discussed <br />the minimizing the impacts of new commercial development, in that it was intended to <br />consolidate and improve existing strip commercial areas. <br />. Policy 5 discussed actions that anticipated improving the sites, including landscaped <br />parking lots on River Road frontage, consolidate and minimize access points on River <br />Road and locating new development in proximity to other commercial uses. Policy 6 <br />said new neighborhood commercial uses should be located away from River Road, which <br />would prohibit C-J in the area, while new commercial development other than C-l would <br />be allowed. The applicant's were attempting to find the small scale commercial <br />development between C~ 1 and C-2 that would fit in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll said the applicant did a lot of work in light of the market demand and the City's <br />goals. While the proposed site plan was intriguing, he was in agreement with the staff findings, <br />noting the policy direction was in favor of more housing, and a variety of housing forms. He said <br />this was not an existing strip site. He could not support the application. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland agreed with Mr. Carroll, that as crafted, the proposal did not meet the applicable <br />policies. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said there was not enough information to enable him to make a decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan said overall the applicant had supported their requests, but he was not comfortable <br />with how changes occurred to the Metro Plan maps, and unfortunately, placed dift1cult <br />requirements upon the applicant, since there was no text history of how the map changes <br />occurred. While the refinement plansuppOlted a portion of the site being commercial, he <br />concurred with Mr. Lawless that there was insufficient information to make a decision at the <br />present time. <br /> <br />Mr. McCown said although he was leaning towards supporting the direction of the application, <br />but he wanted time to more thoroughly consider the issues raised at today's meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan noted an even split in the support by Commissioners of the project as proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said the issue was scheduled to go to the City Council after January 1,2008. The <br />Commission's discussion and split view would focus light on the issues the Council would <br />consider and would provide the applicant with suggestions of what additional materials would be <br />necessary to enable the Conncil to make a decision in their favor. The applicant could submit <br />additional information when the City Council reopened the record. Staff would get back to the <br />Planning Commission with possible dates to continue the discussion. <br /> <br />IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF <br /> <br />A. Other Items from Staff <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner reported that four Planning Commission applications had been submitted. City <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />November 5, 2007 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />