02/08/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ;;. Ms. Miller read the Planning Commission's wording (Planning Commission minutes September 29, 1981, meeting, pages 2-3) and the plan draft wording. Councilors agreed that there was a change in emphasis. Ms. Miller explained the neighbor- hood planning team was aware that the state of the art in parking structures was that it is more economical to demolish them than to recycle them. However, they wished to emphasize re-use in the wording. Developers and Public Works staff testified that re-use was not economically feasible. The councilors concluded this issue concerned not only demolition of parking structures but their location, screening, and night security lighting. 5. Issue: Mixed-Use Areas Ms. Miller briefed the council on the testimony and recommendations of the Planning Commission (pages 12-15 and Land Use Diagram Planning Commission Recommendation). In the plan draft one mixed-use area is on 12th Street and the others are in the commercially zoned areas. Residents of the West University area testified that they like the mixed-use designation. They were concerned about the Planning Commission's change to "commercial" on the diagram. It was suggested that a designation called "commercial with housing" might be used. Ms. Miller said 12th Avenue is the most controversial area in the plan. The Planning Commission recommended that clinics be an outright use in the area north of 13th and be a conditional use in R-4 city-wide. They recommended that site review be attached to residentially zoned areas north of 13th. Site review will not deny use. The plan draft said that clinics should be a conditional use on 12th Avenue and that there should be a residential predominance. The medical community was concerned that the conditional use permit process would be used to deny clinics on 12th. 6. Issue: Procedural Objections Ms. Miller discussed the testimony concerning procedure. The three objections raised at the council hearing were: 1) the Planning Commission continued to receive testimony after its own deadlines; 2) additional introductory text findings, policies, and proposals were added to the commission's recommendation after the November 10 public hearing; and 3) the neighborhood group does not permit property owners to vote. Ms. Miller reviewed the memorandum of February 5, 1981, page 6, concerning procedural concerns. Ms. Miller discussed the third procedural issue concerning property owners not being allowed to vote at the neighborhood level. The neighborhood recognition policy is adopted by the City Council. It is an issue that will come before the council for review in the future. Mr. Lindberg distilled the issues: Should the economic centers be able to expand to improve the economy? Should high-density housing be made available in the downtown area? Should low-income housing be preserved? He asked for more facts and figures from other studies. Ms. Decker suggested that regardless of the information generated, the council needed to clarify policy direction. It would be more productive to balance the residential-commercial interests in a policy decision and direction. Mr. Lindberg asked if the tools were there for MINUTES--Eugene City Council February I, 1981 Page 3