Item 4: Ordinance on Oregon West Management LLC

Home Browse Search

RECEIVED AfTER PUBLIC HEARING BUT PRIOR TO CLOSE OF RECORD r Attachment 'C' . . .. ~ ~-' ~~! 7.=-r.i/ -:;: .-,::'""j \ d_ ff' I'''''' It \.... t. I ". 1.....!ll~. M .!~ L" t. :-:- ::.- I _.__._..._._._..__...... ;,. !: . I, I . ~. r ......~ J . i.J lr' MAR 1 4 2008, ':: I' . March 13, 2008 City of Eugene . City Council . , L- . .. Ms. O'Donnell, Thank you for forwarding your responses to council questions and the applicant's submittal after the public 'hearing before council. I am writing to respond to these items. · The unease around Santa Clara losing its PL land has been alleviated somewhat by the applicant's promise of a year-round open-air market (akin to a farmer's market). The inclusion of this element has.garnered positive feedback and support for his application from the community. After looking at Eugene code, lean not find where . this is allowed either outright or conditionally in C2 zoning. 1 suggest that if he is promising this to the community it become a condition of approval. Otherwise the commupity becomes the victim ofa'''bait and switch" whereby at the time of development they are told that this use is prohibited in the new zone. · The supply of vacant and underused C2 land referred to by Ellen Hytl1an at the hearing was not limited to land undergoing zone changes to C2~ but included land already zoned C2 and vacant. When these are added to.the land undergoing conversion to C2, the total nears Ms~ Hyman's estimate. Prime commercial-I.21 acres The Commons-approx 9 acres Brotherton LLC 3.1 acres Shin Property 2 acres Barclay Slocum Trust 1.5 acres Division Ave \Y'est ofSt.Vincent's approx.5 acre River Rd. Lube It approx .5 acre . River Rd. Safeway approx 3 acres · Councilor Bettman's question regarding loss of housing stock and staffs answers have me thinking that perhaps a condition of approval to ensure no net loss of housing units be accompanied by a condition that the housing and commercial be constructed concurrently (in totality or in phases). Otherwise, I can forsee the community getting the commercial build out first and. later hearing that the residential portion "does not pencil out" as has been the case with other mixed use.projects in the area. · I take exception to the letter from Michael Howard concluding' that the "applicant is proposing to build an equal amount of dwelling units. as is most likely to occur under current conditions", This land use application includes only one tax lot to be developed with medium density residential. This 1.3 acres built with 36 units (applicant's stated proposed density) does not create an equal amount of dwelling units as could be achieved with the underlying zoning on the 7.3 acre parcel. Although the applicant owns other commerCial and residential land in the area, these lots are not part of this application. Thank you for your consideration, Kate Perle City Council Ag'enda page 180 \ I. (.