Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Piercy called on those testifying in opposition in opposition to the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ellen Hyman <br />, 3863 Dorchester Lane, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the ordinance. Her <br />opposition was based on her belief approval of the application would mean there was a surplus of C-2 <br />commercial development in the area. She acknowledged the plans looked perfect but “it was just a plan.” <br />She advocated instead for the site to be designated for community use. <br /> <br />Lou Davis <br />, 1220 Rislen Place, believed current policies called for maintaining the current stock of <br />residential land, but if the proposal was approved, 7.3 acres of residential land would be rezoned to C-2 and <br />1.3 acres would be designated for medium-density residential (MDR). She asserted the following policies <br />did not support the request: Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, and River Road/Santa <br />Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Finding 11. Ms. Davis said those documents <br />encouraged increasing residential densities in mixed use areas and areas adjacent to existing commercial <br />centers. She asserted that the applicant could build 100 units on the school site alone if he followed existing <br />policies. Instead, the proposal down-zoned an area that could support additional residential density. She <br />asked the council to deny the application, and requested the record remain open for two weeks. <br /> <br />Kay Prather <br />, 3883 Dorchester Lane, submitted testimony that opposed the application because it removed a <br />“public accessible recreation/education area” with significance to the community and replaced it with <br />shopping and parking. She cited and read several policies in support of her contention, including River <br />Road/Santa Clara Facilities Plan, Parks Subarea Policy 3; Metro Plan Goal 8, Recreational Needs; the City <br />of Eugene pamphlet, Mixed Use Development in Eugene; and the City of Eugene’s Park and Recreational <br />and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. She called on the City to maintain the property as open space <br />and suggested that would facilitate the remainder of the development by serving as a stormwater facility. <br /> <br />Maggie Yocum <br />, 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the zone change because of the commercial corridor that <br />already existed along River Road and because she did not believe there was a demonstrated need for more <br />C-2 parcels in the area. She considered that there were already plenty of such sites and more were in the <br />process of being rezoned. She further maintained that many C-2 developments in the area were not <br />successful. She noted several pending rezoning applications in the area and rumors of other developments. <br />In support of her remarks, Ms. Yocum cited Eugene Commercial Lands Study Subarea Policy 22; Metro <br />Plan Economic Element Policy 6; and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.3. She also requested <br />that the record remain open. <br /> <br />Lee Rodenbacker <br />, 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the proposal because the uses were not commingled on <br />the site. He said the site lent itself to a true mix of uses and could be developed in a way that enhanced the <br />neighborhood. He acknowledged the area was identified as a node in TransPlan but the City had not <br />identified it as a node. However, the applicant asserted the proposal met the intentions of nodal develop- <br />ment. He did not agree as he did not think it achieved a balance between commercial and residential uses. <br />The refinement plan expressly prohibited the expansion of commercial land fronting River Road, and it <br />directed the City to adopt zoning consistent with the urban facilities plan. He also cited the City’s mixed use <br />pamphlet in support of his remarks that the development was not true mixed use. He also referred to Metro <br />Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 <br />Residential Land Use Findings 11, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan General Land Use Policy <br />2, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0, River <br />Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Action 3.1. He too asked that <br />the record remain open. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Public Hearing <br />