Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy called for rebuttal testimony. <br /> <br />Mr. Reed clarified the applicant was not counting on EmX; he anticipated regular bus service would pass by <br />the site when the Chad Street extension was completed in 2008. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She determined there was no objection to closing the record. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stewart closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Fleener, moved that the Board of County Commissioners <br />consider the item on March 21. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wanted to know why the parcel was not included in the Industrial Lands Inventory. Ms. <br />McKinney said it was developed with residential uses and parcels under a certain size were not included in <br />the inventory. Ms. Bettman asked if there was no demand for a six- or seven-acre industrially zoned parcel. <br />Ms. McKinney said that Campus Industrial land tended to be in larger parcels. She did not know about <br />demand for such parcels. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what plan the applicant presented to the neighborhood. Ms. McKinney said she was not <br />there and could not answer the question. Ms. Jerome indicated she would review the record and return with <br />a response. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked the extent of commercial development that would be allowed if the site were a mixed-use <br />development. She also asked for information about the projected density of the proposed residential <br />development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the applicant mentioned internal consistency with the Metro Plan as a rationale and cited <br />plan Policy A.11 in support of that. The policy mentioned high-density residential and on page 688 Mr. <br />Reed referred to the development as high-density residential. She found that inconsistent with a request for <br />MDR and requested reconciliation of those statements. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was anything in the PUD process or the redesignation request that would prevent <br />the appearance of a commercial strip mall. Ms. McKinney said the designation would not permit a strip <br />mall. Ms. Bettman asked if such a development could not include a strip mall with housing behind it. Ms. <br />McKinney reiterated that the City’s PUD criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the commercial <br />uses would serve the residents of the PUD. She did not see how staff could make positive findings under the <br />criteria to support a strip mall along Old Coburg Road for a parcel only seven acres in size. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked the threshold for commercial that would be allowed if, for example, the property was <br />developed at ten units per acre. Ms. McKinney said that was subjective and there was no specific threshold. <br />She emphasized that MDR zones typically did not permit commercial and the City saw very few PUD <br />proposals with a commercial component. The requirement to show the commercial use served the resident <br />of the PUD limited the potential for strip mall development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the City could guarantee that the property was developed with MDR only. She <br />wanted to have that information if possible. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 22, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene City Council <br /> <br />