07/08/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Related Activities." Ms. Decker made a correction in subsection b) of policy . A5 on pages 5 and 6 of the study (page 3 of the memo). Underlined material was added to subsection b). It shoul d be: b) Recognize that proximity to alternate transportation facilities may provide opportunities to reduce parking requirements for certain--- industrial uses. Ms. Anderson said the commission discussed the issue for a long time. The commission did not want the Riverfront Park to have an adverse effect on the downtown by taking office development away. The commission wanted the activi- ties in the Riverfront Park to be University-related. She said the commis- sioners thought their concerns were addressed by the modifications recommended by the commission and reports from the Campus Planning Committee about con- ditions that may be in the ground lease. The third modification concerned the addition of three criteria to the two Willamette Greenway criteria used in the conditional use permit process and a change in the criteria for the Special Development District. Ms. Anderson said the modification responded to testimony requesting opportunities for pub- lic comment on a broader range of issues. The fourth modification concerned potential Public Utility Commissioner (PUC) action closing the Hilyard Street railroad crossing. Ms. Decker said the staff will talk with Southern Pacific Railroad representatives next week about the Hilyard Street crossing. e The fifth modification concerned assuring adequate access to the Riverfront Park. Ms. Anderson said the commission struggled with the alternate modal split. The commission wanted to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and hoped they can be encouraged as the Riverfront Park is developed. She said the recommended modification is the best the commission could work out. The last modification concerned the width and use of buffer and riparian strips. Ms. Anderson said the size of the setback was a major issue for the Planning Commission. Commissioners realized the recommended 30 feet was not much of a setback, but they wanted to leave the developer some options. The commissioners were concerned about the design of the buildings and their placement, but it is not possible to legislate good design. She emphasized that the 3D-foot setback is an absolute minimum. She emphasized that the appropriate setback will depend on the development proposal. Mayor Dbie asked for questions from councilors. Ms. Ehrman wondered if the statement about alternate sites is appropriate. She said the statement seems to encourage discussion of alternate sites. Ms. Anderson said the commission discussion and the position taken was in response to public testimony. The commissioners emphasized that the River- front Park is the best site for University-related research now, but they thought the University administration might consider other University-owned land later if more land is needed for research activities. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1985 Page 2