East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 20 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />1. “Low density residential” v. “residential” labels in Refinement Plan Amendments <br />Much of FNA’s consistency argument concerns the University’s proposal to change the labeling <br />of the Fairmount “Low Density Residential” (LDR) area in the refinement plan text and diagram <br />to “Residential” (R). FNA argues that this labeling change is inconsistent with “the fundamental <br />protection of a single family character of the neighborhood.” FNA January 19 letter. As <br />described above, Council rejects the argument that this change would impact the character of <br />the neighborhood because it would not have changed development standards in the LDR <br />area/R-1 zone. That said, FNA’s argument is moot because the Council has accepted the <br />University’s proposal to modify the proposed Plan Amendments to retain the LDR label. <br />2. Transition area argument <br />FNA also suggests that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with the refinement plan <br />because they eliminate a “meaningful transition” between the Institutional area and the low <br />density residential area. FNA appears to argue that the refinement plan requires more or <br />different restrictions on University development within the Limited Institutional area/East <br />Campus Overlay Zone to accomplish a “meaningful transition” to the residential neighborhood <br />to the east. Various opponents proposed different alternative transition standards (e.g. Gab <br />and Kyablue; Philpot and McCully). <br />Council recognizes that the 2004 amendments to the refinement plan describe the Limited <br />Institutional Area as a “transition between the more intensive institutional uses to the west and <br />north and the low density residential development to the east and south.” Council however <br />interprets the transition area development standards and related Refinement Plan Amendment <br />proposed by the University as consistent with the transition area provisions of the refinement <br />plan. The proposed amendments create a transition area between Moon Lee Lane and the <br />eastern edge of the Limited Institutional area west of Villard Street. Within this area, maximum <br />building height steps down to 45 feet. The Council finds that this height is similar to the height <br />allowed in the low density residential area/R-1 zone along Villard Street and throughout the <br />Fairmount neighborhood as a result of state middle housing law and the SB 1537 adjustment <br />rules. Furthermore, the types of housing development that are consistent with a 45-foot height <br />limit are similar to the middle housing allowed throughout residential zones. This is illustrated <br />by the University’s residential transition diagrams submitted to the Planning Commission and <br />the Council. Council therefore rejects arguments by FNA and other opponents that the <br />proposed amendments are inconsistent with the residential transition provisions of the <br />refinement plan. Council chooses to adopt the University’s proposed transition standards <br />rather than alternative standards proposed by opponents. <br />3. Traffic-related arguments <br />FNA argues that even if the University’s proposal meets Goal 12 and the TPR, it is inconsistent <br />with traffic-related provisions of the local refinement plan. Some of these arguments derive <br />from FNA’s argument about the residential area labels described above and the Council rejects <br />these arguments for the reasons described above.