"The applicant requests a change in zoning from R-1, Low-Density Residential to R-2, Medium
Density Residential & R-4, High Density Residential."

Please see attached documents for more information.

See also these earlier Willow Creek Area Metro Plan documents.

This page is dedicated to the coming improvements to the Videra Park.

Videra Park Forum

Videra Park - Neighborhood Workshop #1 Report

Videra Workshop #2 Report

Proposed Renovations (2)

Timberline Hills Planned Unit Development

Public notice for ST 06-33 was mailed on 3/12/07, and the public comment period is open for 14 days (this applies to all Type II land use applications such as subdivisions). The formal comment period closed on 3/26/07, so the City cannot consider testimony submitted after this date.

Please note that the Timberline Hills development has gone through a number of previous land use approvals, all of which were send to adjoining neighbors and the neighborhood group for comment. The proposal received tentative PUD (Planned Unit Development) approval in November of 2005 (PDT 05-2), and final PUD (PDF 06-5) approval in September 2006. ST 06-33 is actually for phases 2-13, as ST 06-5, approved in August 2006, was the subdivision for Phase 1-2. Notice was provided and public comment was received for all of these applications. The Hearings Official and Planning Director approvals can be provided upon request.

The PUD approval essentially conceptually approved the layout for the development, and the subdivision applications now are being reviewed against the subdivision approval criteria, and for conformance with the approved PUD. Essentially, if the applicant conforms to the previous approvals (which it appears they do) and subdivision approval criteria, the City is obligated to approve the subdivision as submitted.

Aerie Park (VEI 06-3)

City files: PDT 04 -3, PDF 05-7, ST 05-25 and SF 06-13. 

Aerie Park PUD forum

Valley Investments

The request to partition the one lot into two, which with the zoning of R-1 will allow the applicant to either sell it, or build another single family home if it is approved. The applicant is requesting to create a new lot on the northern side of the existing house (turning the large backyard into a lot). They propose to pave the access way back to the new lot. Although typically this isn't required until a building permit for a home is applied for. The new lot is proposed as a "flag lot" which allows for less street frontage (area of the lot along a street) than a standard lot. The minimum is 15 feet for a flag lot as opposed to 50 feet for a standard lot. This allows someone to create a pole access to a lot that is a minimum of 15' wide. The flag lot minimum lot area is 6000 square feet not counting the access pole. Two most common areas of concern with flag lots are:

> -Compatibility with the neighborhood (sometimes large new homes are built in areas with typically older and smaller dwellings) this may not necessarily fit into what people feel is the character of their neighborhood.
> -Privacy (neighbors directly adjacent to the property may now have a home with windows looking into their back yard or driveways where they weren't before)

> The city has a current effort underway to address some of these issues http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=0&in_hi_userid=2&control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=228&PageID=1783

Other aspects of a land division such as this.
> -Affordable housing - In general having more land available for building (especially smaller infill lots) helps keep the housing market reasonable.
> -Infill v. sprawl - Infill development such as this helps increase density within the Urban Growth Boundary lessening the pressure to expand it thereby preserving natural resources.
> -Efficient use of services - Infill development usually makes use of existing infrastructure which is an efficient use of resources.