CC Minutes - 12/11/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Additionally, Mr. Vishanoff asked that planning for the Walnut Node be slowed down as it was dependent on the construction of a basketball arena. He suggested that putting it on the back burner would be a good idea because otherwise it would be a “doughnut node” and therefore would lack credibility. th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors (JWN), related that the neighborhood group voted unanimously to support efforts by Chambers Area residents to ensure that future infill did not continue to erode and destabilize the character and stability of their part of the neighborhood. She briefly recapped the process by which the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) collaborated with the City to generate the groundwork leading to the council-approved Chambers Special Area Zone. She stressed that the zone’s flexible and innovative standards were and are quietly supported. She stated that other than a recent Ballot Measure 37 claim, no complaints had been brought to the JWN Board. Ms. Kane felt the standards were proving effective against destructive infill while allowing great latitude in development and a manageable increase in density. She thought the property subject to the Measure 37 claim was an exceptional case that would require site-specific standards. Ms. Kane noted that the council already directed the Planning Commission to look at the broader concept of an alternative path for the development approval process as a way to address exceptional cases. She averred that this concept could eventually be implemented for a broad range of residential and/or commercial development and would also likely be an element of the opportunity siting program that was underway. She suggested that an alternate path would naturally apply to the Chambers Special Area Zone and others, and that new residential zones might arise from the infill compatibility standards program. She said the JWN encouraged continued consideration of an alternate path. The neighborhood group felt there was no need to initiate another public process to change the standards and to have the Planning Commission reexamine them. She predicted that “throwing the Chambers Special Area standards open again” would diminish community faith in the planning process. She conveyed the JWN Executive Board’s unanimous opposition to revision of the Chambers Special Area Zone at this time. Matt Purvis , 1391 West Broadway, member of the CAFHN steering committee, thanked councilors for the consideration shown for the work of the group during 2004 and 2005, which culminated in the approval of the Chambers Special Area Zone. He stressed that the process by which the zone standards had been formulated was extensive and public, including five forums and six meetings between staff, residents, and other interested parties. He recalled that the Planning Commission conducted one work session and held two public hearings prior to its 4:1 vote to recommend the standards as submitted. The City Council voted 5:1 to adopt the standards unchanged. He related that the process was supported by diverse groups such as the Home Builders Association and the Friends of Eugene. He did not believe this was the time to send the standards back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. th Carol DeFazio , 1437 West 10 Avenue, member of CAFHN, recounted the process CAFHN underwent. She reiterated that hundreds of hours had been spent in public meetings and discussion on infill standards and that she was proud of the results. She believed that now one councilor recently “seized on a mere pretense to try to undo the results.” She believed there was no problem with the standards that had been already approved and there was no call from the public to change them. She said the only motivation to send the standards back to the Planning Commission would be to try to provide opponents with the opportunity to undo what “they don’t like.” She felt a reversal would be a breach of faith. She asked the council to oppose Councilor Kelly’s motion because she believed it would “wound the public faith.” Rob Handy , 455-½ River Road, thanked the council for scheduling a work session on annexation policy. He suggested that residents of the River Road/Santa Clara area were “deeply troubled by what some staff MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting