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