Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

However, even if the Planning Commission determines the subject property is considered part of an "existing strip commercial area", the proposal is still not consistent with this policy. The remainder of Policy 3 limits expansion of strip commercial onto contiguous properties that do not front on River Road. Because part of this site fronts on River Road, the proposed new commercial designation would not be consistent with this policy. Does the applicants suggested "development scheme" have any bearing on, or does it imply an encumbrance on the eventual development that would be allowed as a result of the land-use amendments being requested? My understanding is that the process of granting the amendments has no direct tie to any development proposal that may emerge later, except any voluntary or additionally mandated conditions of approval. So, within those conditions and the basic underlying allowances of the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan and Zoning, the developer could build something quite different than what is being "Suggested" in the application. Is that correct? The applicant's "site concept" plan (Exhibit 1.2 of the applicant's Metro Plan Amendment application), was not proposed to be adopted as part of the relinement plan amendments so it would be of no force. It was provided for illustrative purposes only, to demonstrate an example of a layout that could occur. As part ofthe proposed PUD and Site Review land use applications, any proposed development would be subject to the limitations in the Eugene Code, the applicable policies in the RRSC, and the additional limitations the applicant has proposed as text amendments to the RRSC (see applicant's Exhibit L 1 or as restated on page 24 of the staff report). The developer could build within those parameters and is not held to any part of the "site concept" plan Exhibit 1.2, excepting those elements in the "site concept" plan as stated in the proposed refinement plan text amendments. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits from October 18, 2007 Public Hearing: Exhibit I: E-mail from Sue Pritchard** Exhibit 2: Memorandum from Heather 0' Donnell * * Exhibit 3: Letter from Steve Graves (applicant) Exhibit 4: Packet from Rick Satre, (applicant's representative)** Exhibit 5: Letter from Joan Haworth-Liu and Jack Liu Exhibit 6: Letter from Catherine Lesiak ** These items are only attached to the packets for Plamling Commissioners that were not at the public hearing. The Planning Commissions at the hearing received copies of these exhibits at the hearing. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. loth Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-5488 or via email at heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us.