My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony Batch 15 - through 5:00pm on 2026-02-10
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2025
>
CA 25-02
>
Public Testimony Batch 15 - through 5:00pm on 2026-02-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 11:30:09 AM
Creation date
2/12/2026 11:29:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
2
Application Name
East Campus University of Oregon
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
2/10/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 31 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study <br />The Refinement Plan Amendment, which is concurrent with the Code Amendment, includes <br />updates to several sections of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study. <br />The text of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study has been updated to allow <br />student “dorm” uses within Limited Institutional area. <br />In order to ensure consistency with the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study, the <br />Eugene Code requirement implementing this Refinement Plan provision, EC 9.4215(1)(c), must <br />be updated to remove the prohibition of dormitory uses in the /EC East Campus Overlay Zone <br />from the Eugene Code. <br />Remaining portions of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study are related to <br />areas outside the East Campus boundaries or to general neighborhood policies, none of which <br />will be directly affected by the amendments. As such, no other policies listed in the Refinement <br />Plan appear to serve as mandatory approval criteria for this amendment or require further <br />analysis beyond that provided above. <br />As described above, FNA disputes that the University’s proposal is consistent with the <br />refinement plan, and the Council rejects those arguments for the reasons described above. FNA <br />also argues that the proposed Code Amendments violate EC 9.8065(2) because they are <br />inconsistent with Section II, Policy E.6(d) of the refinement plan, which provides as follows: <br />“The preservation and maintenance of the historic architectural, <br />single- family residential character of the Low Density Residential <br />area is an integral part of the surrounding neighborhood. New <br />development shall demonstrate compatibility with this historic <br />architectural, single- family residential character, located east and <br />south of the East Campus area, through consideration of <br />appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural <br />style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and <br />mitigation of off-site impacts.” <br />Council notes that the surrounding text in this portion of the refinement plan shows that this <br />policy applies in the “Low Density Residential Area” that is located “[o]n University-owned East <br />Campus lands within the state-approved University boundary.” Council finds that this area is <br />the area east of the 75-foot wide transition area proposed by the University, meaning the <br />houses on the west side of Villard Street that are along the eastern boundary of the refinement <br />plan area. As described above, the proposed amendments do not affect development within <br />the low density residential area/R-1 zone, only development within the Limited Institutional <br />Area/East Campus overlay zone to the west. The Council therefore finds that this policy is not <br />relevant to the proposed Code Amendments because the amendments do not change <br />development standards in the low density residential area. Council therefore rejects FNA’s <br />consistency argument regarding EC 9.8065(2).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.