conservation, mixed use development, including some medium and high-density development, <br />and improved transit in the Lower River Road area. <br />The LRRCP offers several principles violated by this part of the OMC PUD. <br />*First, the OMC PUD asks forhousing density just a unit or two below the maximum allowed <br />density. This development is sited at the very end of Oakleigh Lane - as far as it is possible to <br />get from River Road, and as close as it is possible to get to the river and to publicly-owned <br />Greenway, <br />But the Concept Plan states that "Higher-density development will be clustered toward [River) <br />road, and gardens, orchards, and lower density development will be located along the river edge <br />of development zones" (pp. 7-8). Here, the OMC PUD inverts the priorities of the Concept Plan. <br />There is nothing in the phrase "higher density" to preclude its inclusion of variations within R-1- <br />designated zones. <br />*Second, the OMC PUD plans. to develop multi-family units in 7 separate buildings. <br />But the Concept Plan states that for the residential areas outside:of the commercial zones <br />(including Oakleighmeadow), i.e. "R-1 Zoned Areas along River Road... The development goal <br />for these areas is to preserve and rehaforce.the single. family character of existing R-1 zoned <br />properties" (p. 28). Indeed, this section of the LRRCP inakes'repeated reference to the <br />traditional and "historic" single-family-pattern of housing in the non-commercial parts of the. <br />area and the applicable "concepts" and "goals of "preserv[ing] and reinforc[ing]" it (25 and 28; <br />see also 24, 27), Here again, the OMC PUD does not follow the priorities and goals of the <br />Concept Plan. <br />*Oakleigh Lane is an excellent example of the.single-family character -ofthe.Lower River Road <br />area; nearly all the homes on Oakleigh Lane we single-family homes, 1 building (130-132 <br />Oakleigh) is a rental property with just 2 apartments; another (110 Oakleigh) has a mother-in-law <br />apartment. The OMC project; with its many multi-family properties, is out of character withthe <br />street in a way.particLilarly discouraged by the Concept Plan. <br />Incompabilities with EC and LC code. governing Greenway Development Permit Approval <br />(LC 10-322.15; EC 9.8800ff).. <br />Development Permits on land that belongs to the Willamette River Greenway are governed in' <br />Lane County by special code outlined at LC 10-322..15'. The code states that any change-of-use <br />pen-nits "shall require that the proposed intensification, change of use, or development conforms_ <br />to the following criteria, guidelines, and setback requirement" (10-322.15). The OMC PUD is <br />incompatible with several of the Guidelines of this code: <br />*Guideline 10-322.15 (d) affirms the principle to "Preserve areas of annual flooding, floodplains, <br />and wetlands." <br />936 <br />