02/08/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ "' 2. Issue: School Di stricts Concern Regard ing Transportat ion and Parking Element in Proposal 2 ~ Since the council studied the issue at a previous meeting, they discussed the action taken since that last meeting. Mr. Gleason had met with the Superin- tendent of schools. City and school district staffs are working on an agreement concerning several issues of interest to both parties. Mr. Gleason assured the School Board and the Superintendent that this issue was in the planning stages, it would have to be dealt with in the T-2000 proposal at the L-COG level, the TIP process, and at the level of design and construction. Ms. Miller said staff has been in contact with the school district planner. Revision of the graphics to remove the dotted line depicting a proposed street through the school district facilities would make the school district more comfortable and would be agreeable to the City. Changes in the proposal to mention avoiding increased traffic counts on High Street, a residential street, and stating that, in planning the intersection at 19th and Amazon, the City would coordinate with affected property owners such as School District 4-J, would make the district more comfortable about the plan. e 3. Issue: Housing Ms. Miller reviewed the testimony concerning housing (page 3 of the memo). Staff had contacted existing clinics in residential zones south of 13th Avenue to determine which parcels were under development control as of December 1, 1982. Serenity Lane at 16th and Hilyard has one and one-half parcels not under their conditional use permit. The total residential units of their area under develop- mental control is 10. The clinic at 1667 High Street has owned for several years a parcel on 17th Avenue. The other clinics have not obtained additional land. There are a total of 11 units on 2-1/2 parcels under the development of existlng clinics. Ms. Miller reviewed the rest of the testimony (page 3 of the memo) concerning housing. 4. Issue: Changes in the Introductory Text Ms. the the the Miller noted that the Planning Commission. introductory text are consensus items. testimony objected to the changes in the text made by She noted (in the December 17 memo) that "changes to of less importance" to the Planning Commission than 5. Issue: Transportation and Parking Element Changes Ms. Miller explained public testimony indicated concerns about polices 3, 5, and 7 and proposal 7. Policy 3 concerned the east-west bike travel on 12th, 13th, and 15th. Policy 5 concerned street types and staff proposed rewording in the memorandum. Policy 7 concerned institutional access. The Planning Commission recommendation was based on concerns of the Public Works Department that the City cannot deny access to an institution if it is not located on an arterial. Mr. Hanks explained there are places where it is more appropriate to have access on a side street than on an arterial. Testimony of the neighbors indicated access should be from arterials in order not to clog residential streets. The proposal regarding parking structures was changed by the Planning Commission. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February f, 1981 Page 2